::: T h e F r e e d o m P a r t y :::

October 2006

Effects of diversity

Harvard University's celebrated political scientist Robert Putnam, described as the most influential academic in the world, has drawn some conclusions about the effects of 'diversity' - a quasi-religious object of devotion at present - which would be hilarious if it were not tragic.
The good academic tells us that the more diverse a community becomes the less people trust one another. And this applies even to relationships with other people recognised as similar.
“In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he says.
“We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”. but the same applies in less extreme situations.
“They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions. The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”
Does Professor Putnam think that perhaps those of us who drew the same conclusions a long time ago might have been right in thinking that immigration would not be beneficial in general - leaving aside whatever factions might cynically exploit the process? Better not pull down all the pillars of the temple at once. His conclusion is still that immigration is beneficial.
So what should be done about the glaring deficiencies of a society where no one trusts anyone else? The Professor has held back his full report until he can offer a solution. But the bones of his answer, it appears, will be that the host society must change to suit immigrants.
"Trends that have been socially constructed can be socially reconstructed".
Thus yet more turmoil and Maoist cultural revolution is to be imposed on the long-suffering West with the backing of academics whose expertise proved so lamentably in error when the utopian theory of a multicultural free-for-all was seized on by politicians for their own seedy purposes.
Putman notes that 75% of Americans trusted government in the 1950s. The proportion is now of the order of 20%. Hardly surprising when explosive social change is imposed on a host population, and its high priests eventually have to admit to what everyone else could see if they wished to - that the theory was wrong.
Tory credibility

David Cameron has two major credibility problems not solely the lack of substance most people in Britain have now concluded to be the case.
The other difficulty is whether any firm policy pledges he makes are going to be believed. He has not made a promising start by funking his pledge to withdraw from the federalist European party.
The electorate is also far wiser to the workings of spin than in 1997 and knows all too well that the results of most policies can be measured in umpteen different ways depending on whether you want a positive or negative outcome to be shown. The state of immigration control and the NHS are examples well-demonstrated by Labour. Government can do almost anything and still claim a big result.
The electorate is also wiser to ingeniously worded political verbiage which appears to announce a firm pledge but has built-in loopholes. For example, a 'firm intention to increase pensions as resources permit'.
Put together the current cynicism about politicians (Tony Blair has merely gone further along the spin path than his predecessors) with Cameron's obvious reluctance to commit himself, and he is not well-placed to convince anyone that we will get what eventually appears to be offered.
If a hung parliament results from the next election, and Cameron were able to make some alliance, then the position will be even worse. Who knows what pledges might be abandoned in order to get through the famous black door to Number 10?
The electorate might well feel better the devil you know unless David Cameron makes something of a sea change to his tactics. Perhaps he intends to try the Liberal Democrat tactic of saying anything that might please someone in the knowledge that nothing will ever be put to the test in government.
As the next election approaches, we may all be invited to salivate about free Tory pie. A few votes will be garnered - but at least no one will be offended. .

Quotes of the month

'Eighty pence in every pound in donations to Labour has come from people who have been ennobled in some way. It's clear there is a big problem.'

Daily Mail September 30 2006

'Schools which are officially full are taking in even more pupils - if they are immigrants.
The figure is officially 11,000 but is likely to be much more because many schools do not have a breakdown of where pupils come from. The migrants are being taken into schools where local children have already been turned away.'

Daily Express October 9 2006

'An innocent boy of 15 simply walking down the street was kidnapped, bundled into a car, knifed repeatedly, and finally doused in petrol and set alight.
The only reason the boy was murdered, a court in Edinburgh was told, was because he was white. His attackers, all Asian, wanted revenge for a nightclub incident.
I didn't see this story in any other national newspaper than The Times. Nor has it been on any national radio bulletin or TV newscast. Had the reverse happened, an Asian lad murdered by a white gang, the coverage would rightly have been enormous. There would have been outpourings from various agencies saying this must never happen again. But not with this lad. Have we reached the point where the media no longer believes a white skin is the equal of a brown skin?'

Kelvin Mackenzie - The Sun October 12 2006

'Media tycoon Rupert murdoch manages to belittle David Cameron by saying: 'He's charming. He's very bright and he behaves as if he doesn't believe in anything other than trying to construct the right public image.'

Daily Mail October 9 2006

September 2006

Is it a conspiracy?

During the summer, an astonishing change has occurred in political discourse about immigration.
Migration into Britain is the biggest issue facing the nation, and one concerning which most of the population are at odds with the long-standing interests and intentions of the political class. No wonder such efforts have been made to close down debate for the last forty years. The media - as a part of big business which largely makes policy anyway - has mostly supported the government of the day. It has eagerly joined in the vilification of anyone putting their head over the parapet, built up the sinister 'racism' allegation employed as a catch-all charge, and made an industry out of fictional television drama in which white people seem to be the despair of saintly ethnics.
Since the spring, a paradigm shift has taken place. The media, and some politicians, have at last been forced by the gulf between their rhetoric and the reality confronting citizens into pretending that it is alright by them to debate immigration.
The worthy Frank Field MP has now gone so far as to say that Labour's intention appears to be identical to that of Stalin towards the Ukraine. The Russian monster wanted to deport its population and replace them with peoples he regarded as loyal. A BBC man recently said that Blair did not like the British working class and had decided to import one more to his taste.
Anyone who imagines that any of this signals a change of policy will be disappointed. The entire interest of the British establishment is now bound up with what is a global power play. Business is international. Nations are impediments to profit in that societies have other interests as well as profit. It is often noticed that political leaders soon succumb to the pleasures of travelling round the world in luxury jets rather than dealing with the tedium of daily business. The Labour Party, formed to protect working people, is now up to its devious neck in the impetus towards turning Britain into an 'international labour station', as Field put it. Its leaders seem to be a coven of those with narcissistic personality flaws.
Is there thus a conspiracy - as some claim - to create a global plantation of deculturalised serf workers? Certainly the idea is not so absurd to the majority as it was even at the turn of the millennium.
There are groupings who scheme in that secret way, but the far greater part of the huge forces behind the obvious systematic destruction of British society is simply the result of a great many individuals and organisations pushing in the same direction without any overall ordering directorate.
Adam Smith noticed, two hundred years ago, how the actions of individuals in pursuing their self-interest led to an outcome so complex in its organisation that it appeared impossible without a determining mind directing events. He famously called it the 'unseen hand'.
Britain's difficulty is that all too many people get a fast profit on the way to our doom. A coterie of politicians sit on their backs waiting for a payoff. Yet they are a minute number among us. Their real power has been the ability to persuade people that they were pursuing the public good. Hence the curious manoeuvres employed to explain their immigration policy - multiculturalism, celebrating diversity, stronger by our difference and all the other tripe cooked up for public entertainment.
The admission, at last, that all is not as well as we have been told is not the end of the monstrous racket. Too many people have too much to lose. But a chink has been opened in the armour of lies which has protected the ruling system from serious question as to the real nature of its particular utopian snake oil.
No fun at the office

One would have hoped that the Law Society had more important things to do than worry about the type of socialising indulged in by staff in law firms.
Yet, in dramatic pronouncements, the society which regulates solicitors claims that gays are being driven out of their jobs by the discomforts of trips to pubs, rugby matches and lap dancing clubs - 'undertones of homophobia' in the language of PC. Not everyone's idea of a great time, but scarcely the stuff of persecution.
What do these people expect? Such entertainments are likely to appeal to a far bigger proportion of staff than the minute number of homosexuals. Do they want matters to be balanced up by trips to homosexual clubs? These people are lucky enough to have well-paid careers others can envy. There is plenty of real injustice in workplaces which demands a remedy. Sitting in a clip joint drinking over-expensive alcohol hardly meets the definition.
We predict that, before long, firms in Britain will be forced to abandon soclal activities for staff in the face of the impossibility of satisfying the various lobbies pleading persecution, and demanding that their minority tastes are included in the festivities.

Quotes of the month

'Most white people have never extended their hands out to the communities and they shouldn't be forced to. We are fine with that. All the bridges, which have had to be built a million times, have been repeatedly burnt down and now it's white Britain that has to go on its knees and beg for forgiveness. '

Aki Nawaz - The Guardian September 1 2006

'Your Editorial proclaims that 350,000 Polish immigrants "speak English as well as the natives, if not better", and have contributed to economic growth. I have good news for your editorial writer. Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants will also be arriving from 2007, many journalistically trained and keen to produce good copy at the minimum wage of £5.05 an hour.'

Letters - Sunday Times May 21 2006

'Far from liberating our economy, Gordon Brown seems bent on shackling it with higher tax and red tape. He has read the evidence showing low-tax economies are more efficient and deliver better public services - and dismissed it. He believes it is our sacred duty to give him the cash he thinks we don't need so that he can spend it better. Once he is in Tony Blair's shoes, the only way taxes will move is up.'

Trevor Kavanagh - The Sun March 20 2006

'In an attempt to ease labour shortages, people from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus will no longer need work permits to enter the country. With thousands of its citizens flocking to the UK, Poland finds itself short of skilled workers.'

Mail on Sunday September 2 2006

April 2006
Getting closer
The Daily Mail has done a great service over the last several years by publicising the way in which our way of life is being systematically dismantled by the destructive and cynical people who have seized the reins of power.
But the Mail clearly lives in holy terror of being considered to have 'gone too far'. It has resisted describing the enormity of what is being done to the British people, larding its content with little PC gestures designed to construct an image of being frank but not 'extreme'. Matters are now moving so fast in the erosion of the British people's position in this country that the Mail has now, however, been driven quite close to expressing the obvious and inevitable outcome unless there is major political change.
Max Hastings recently wrote in the Mail that Labour wants to destroy the white middle-class. Now if that is achieved with the most powerful section of white people, what chance will the rest have? What Mr Hastings well understands, and what the Mail has now edged close to saying, is the true enormity of our position - that white people are to be destroyed period.
We are now watching the newspapers for the first major article which states matters in their true colour without hedging about the advantages of diversity.
The distraction burglar
Gordon Brown increasingly resembles one of those particularly poisonous people who gain entry to homes by false pretences and then rob the householder when he is not looking.
Since 1997, Mr Brown has snuck in taking a little more tax here and a little there while having given a deliberately false impression that Labour's old ways had changed with the now notorious promise not to raise income tax.
Inevitably, useful investment has suffered along with economic growth. The famous pre-1997 talk of 'endogenous growth' was another deception. Mr Brown is too clever to have thought that his obsession with micromanagement of the economy and increasing of taxation could go hand in hand with a flourishing economy in the long-run. Either he changed his mind once getting power, reverting to type as Old Labour, or he intended to fool everyone from the start. We prefer the second explanation.
But now nervousness about the future is spreading among the public, just at the time when Mr Brown wishes to grasp what he would say is his proper reward for failure. He can see the possibility of Blair clinging on for long enough to deprive him of the big prize.
It is unsurprising that Mr Brown recently launched himself as a world statesman with the worst type of political opportunism possible - adopting the mantle of the poverty pimp.
The lack of an education for many of the world's children is deeply regrettable. But neither the Chancellor nor anyone else is going to resolve the problem by flying round the world first-class dispensing umpteen billions of our tax money. Education in poor countries is one of those things which Lincoln referred to as having to be dealt with the societies affected. No permanent solution can come from doing for people what they can and should do for themselves.
Brown is so transparent. While we are exhorted to think of the suffering millions, he can pick our pockets for more tax money and put up as a saviour of the world.
Most people would say he should be dealing with the huge problems at home. But that is unlikely, since Mr Gordon Brown is more the problem than the solution.
Quotes of the month
'Political participation is withering from the ground up. Time was when there was a list of party applicants eager to stand in local council elections. Today there is none. Constituency party memberships have dropped so fast that subscriptions cover just 13% of Labour income and 6% of the Tories’. There are now fewer than 1m members of political parties in Britain, worse than the Church of England, football attendance or visits to Madame Tussauds. As for such backbone jobs as local party agents, there has been a 60% decline since 1970.'

Simon Jenkins - Sunday Times April 9 2006

'Six out of ten muggings are never reported because the public have lost faith in the police to do anything. The devastating verdict is delivered in a report by Demos, one of Tony Blair's favourite think-tanks. The list of unreported crimes also includes 35 per cent of violent attacks by strangers, 38 per cent of burglaries and 42 per cent of thefts from vehicles.
The report adds: 'The police were more likely to be rated as doing a good job by people who had no contact with them over the past year than those who had.'

James Stack - Daily Mail April 6 2006

'North Wales police have apologised for sending me a letter accusing me of using the phrase 'Little Welshies' on Question Time. I'm happy to accept these PC Plods' regret over mistaken identity, but what about apologising for having pursued this folly in the first place.
One officer wrote to me: 'The pity is that the Chief Inspector concerned will have hit all the diversity buttons necessary for advancement to the next rank and in so advancing will no doubt instil the same garbage in fellow aspirants.'

Allison Pearson - Daily Mail April 12 2006

'The charge of madness in politics often indicates that the abuser wants to bring serious argument to a halt. Being a fully paid-up card carrying fruitcake, I know. The charge of madness was one I regularly encountered when calling for avoiding the ERM and not joining the euro. Today's fruitcakery is so often tomorrow's orthodoxy.'
Andrew Alexander - Daily Mail April 7 2006

March 2006
The unreal times
Did not Alan Clark refer to past British politics as 'the real times'?
The state of the nation now increasingly approaches unreal times. No one trying to construct a meretricious television soap about British political life could include the way matters are drifting without the plot becoming a little too far-fetched to hold the viewers' attention.
Secret loans to Labour not even revealed to its own treasurer. The party chairman tricked on what looked like his possible death bed into signing papers designed to create peerages in return for for those loans. 'Ordinary housewife' and Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell, who had no idea about her husband's murky financial doings despite signing documents involving huge sums. The pathetic David Blunkett blustering in The Sun about how opposed he is to political correctness when he and his party have knowing used it as a key means of stifling debate. MI5 saying they wish to ditch their motto of 'Defend the realm' in favour of something more 'relevant'. Perhaps 'Defend New Labour'. Taxes higher than ever before as the Government attempts to bribe ever more people into supporting it. Nearly a million children about be ditched by NHS dentists after the greatest spending spree on public health care in history. The chief architect of an economic upturn built on the sand of unstainable growth in public employment and growth in personal debt angling to enter Number Ten before he is caught in charge of the Treasury when things go seriously wrong.
On the Tory side, the policy-free leader who seems to have become known simply as 'Dave' insisting he will drink Free Trade tea, and build a wind farm on the roof of his home. Yet more secret loans designed to prevent us knowing to whom the Tories owe favours.
The Liberal Democrat leader forced out by being a drunk. Two hopeful successors having their designs scuppered. One by his sordid relations with rent boys, and the other by being forced to admit he is homosexual having been originally elected precisely by claiming he was not - unlike his main opponent.
But the core of a usable plot for a TV drama is now beginning to emerge.
As fast as the Labour party scandalises the nation, the official opposition positions itself to offer an exact copy of the whole wretched New Labour scam. Cut to secret discussions between powerful men behind the scenes turning the screw on senior politicians by telling them in no uncertain terms that nothing must be changed except the government if that is required to reassure the public.
The only serious rationale for the extraordinary volte face of the Tories on just about everything they stand for is to re-spin New Labour's purposes as something new.
Tax reductions? Of course, but only when 'stability permits'. Immigration? Labour has shamefully lost control of the borders but immigration is a huge success. The NHS to continue unreformed as the cash guzzling monster it is while front line services are cut. 'Commissions' to look at policy are the pretext for avoiding awkward questions about what exactly a Tory government would mean.

The morality of Iraq
What do you do about a country whose leader is a monster but in a situation in which only a monster could maintain any semblance of order?
The best anyone can now hope for the Iraqi people is that another Saddam emerges to get the lights back on and the taps flowing.
No whites
News that Avon and Somerset police have been forced to fess up to binning 200 job applications from white men might be welcomed if the same practice were not continuing in a more stealthy manner in every branch of government. This police force has now paid £25,000 to one applicant who lodged tribunal proceedings. We hope the others will do the same. The Chief Constable, Colin Port, who has now admitted he acted illegally in attacking whites, should resign.
If the rejected men had been black, would he still be in his job?
Quote of the month
'When the media began to be dominated by news about demonstrations, boycots and arson attacks against the Danish flag and embassies, most agreed that September 30 - the day Jyllands-Posten published the famous cartoons - would enter into Danish history as the beginning of the most serious national crisis since the occupation (by Nazi Germany during WW2). And considering the also recently ongoing international press interest 'The Battle of Khartoon' - as the matter now is being called by funny commentators abroad - has assumed the character of a world historical event.
The parallel with the occupation era is getting more conspicuous all the time. True, the enemy doesn't have troops in our country - at least not very many -, but if you cut out the surrounding commotion and the ever more embarrassing away-explanations, which the major part of the opinion elite excels in, then this matter is really very simple: enemy forces and their local agents are trying to limit a right which the Danish population has considered self-evident, i e the right to be able to freely express one's opinion, within the law's framework.
The admonitions of several earlier foreign-affairs ministers, those floppy ex-ambassadors, those bishops ready to adapt, those authors etc remind us unpleasantly of Christan X's proclamation on April 9 1940, after the occupation of the country: 'Under these so serious conditions for our fatherland, I request all of you in the cities and the countryside to display a completely correct and dignified behaviour, as every imprudent act or statement can have the most serious consequences.'
Isn't that exactly the same we get to hear today - demands to abstain from imprudent statements - not because they would violate Danish law, but because foreign masters won't tolerate them? And these demands come at a time when the country is not occupied by military force, and when the Moslem part of the population still is between 4 and 5% only. How much liberty will there be left in 10, 15 or 20 years?'
Lars Hedegaard, historian and journalist, Jyllands Posten Copenhagen 2006

February 2006
A gathering storm
Muslims calling for mass murder in our streets. Unlimited invasion by immigrants. But no major party willing to even ameliorate what is happening in the large. Hardly anyone willing for vote for change. The newspapers feeling the public mood and reflecting it for sales. Complain, but give no encouragement to action. Like the Daily Mail.
Each warning about the future is met by the press with a festival of reassurance. A minor change here, a political tweak there, and the underlying forces will be contained. Each upset and a little more ground is given to people whose objectives have nothing in common with the British people, and a bottomless series of historical and present grudges against this country.
You need to examine the 1930s to appreciate the mindset. People wanted to believe that if everyone shouted 'peace' then those who did not want it would be stung into changing their ways. Don't provoke them and maybe they will go away.
A woman on the radio said recently that if you find burglars in your home best ask them to take everything, and then claim on the insurance. The true voice of the appeasement mindset!
During the Thirties, people thought that their being personally affected by what was happening seemed remote. With the carnage of the Great War a very recent memory, any desperate straw to clutch on was better than taking action. So people waited and waited and then.....trouble was forced upon them anyway.
In the interim, wiser men fumed in frustration at the blind eye being turned to reality.
Cameron and the NHS
David Cameron's desperate attempts to avoid controversy, while claiming to be a politician, continue with his latest wheeze for dealing with the thorny question of the NHS.
Mr Cameron says that politics should be removed from the NHS.
Now the NHS is, in fact, one of the most political issues in British politics. The demand for health services is bottomless. But the supply of funds is limited by taxpayer resistance. Add to the pot the fact that the supply of medicine is often a matter of life and death, or makes the difference between misery and pain and happiness. Add further the supply of secure state jobs which the current arrangements provide, and which the unions guard covetously, and you have one of the most difficult questions in what politics is all about - the contest between different interests whose wishes cannot all be simultaneously met.
How exactly does Mr Cameron propose that these thorny matters by decided? Presumably, civil servants will decide how to spend the cash, and take the blame from the disappointed.
That leaves us wondering exactly what politicians like Mr Cameron will do. Waft about purveying more kindergarten public relations initiatives, one assumes.
Plumbers
Plumbing is now proceeding down the same primrose path as IT.
'Skills shortages' have been a persistent cry used by Labour to justify immigration. All too many people therefore supposed that there was a bottomless pit of money to be made in certain industries, and rushed to train for careers which the press frequently chose to portray as little effort for much reward.
Before long supply will exceed demand. That is what has happened with IT, and, according to the Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors, the supply of plumbers will soon vastly outnumber the volume of work.
Not only will new entrants be squeezed by the other 26,000 people in training, but also by immigrants who have moved in to take advantage of building boom of the last few years.
If the Government had thought a little ahead they would, at least, have made some attempt to limit the length of time foreign workers could remain here. As matters rest, people are being trained for jobs already taken by immigrants.
Quotes of the month
'David Cameron needs to be challenged over the fact that the ostensible centre ground to which he is laying such noisy claim is nothing of the kind, but is rather the forward salient of a lethal assault upon the foundations of British society.'
Melanie Phillips - The Mail January 9 2006
'Why have our commentariat rallied so readily behind Dave Cameron? Believe me, if the media establishment likes any political leader, them you may be sure that leader is a tool of the liberal elite and an enemy of the people.'
Peter Hitchens - Mail on Sunday February 6 2006
'Britain is in danger of inheriting the title of the 'sick old man of Europe' warned a report by the Bank of America. It predicts Britain's taxes will be higher this year than Germany's for the first time in recent history.
The report coincides with the publication of The Bumper Book Of Government Waste: The Scandal Of The Squandered Billions. The authors accused Mr Brown of 'presiding over the greatest waste of money in British history'.'
The Mail on Sunday January 16 2006
'As one of the greatest humourists of the 20th century, Michael Wharton, who died yesterday. constructed a parallel universe. But the astonishing thing about his flights of fancy is that so many of them became reality. No sooner had he invented the "race relations industry" than it came into being. His preposterous "go-ahead Bishop of Bevindon" now sits enthroned in almost every diocese. Sir Aylwin Goth-Jones the "greatest living policeman", who advocates the use of police helicopters to catch drink drivers, is now in charge of every force in the land.
We salute our very own genius.'
Daily Telegraph - January 24 2006

January 2006
New Year's Greetings
We wish our readers all over the world a happy new year!
And it promises to be an interesting one politically with the regimes in the US, Britain, and much of Europe becoming played out, and with their errors beginning to accumulate increasing doubts.
But it is in Britain that matters are currently most interesting. Some breath appears to be coming back into the derelict carcase of party politics. The early indications are of a period of even greater cynicism in the operations of big parties than before. But this is to the good in hopefully provoking questioning of the present three party system as to whether it provides any real basis for a meaningful democracy.
Mr Blair's plan
Tony Blair has now been found out as the empty political vessel he always was.
But no one reaches his position on the slippery pole without ample native cunning. Blair must understand well that his positive 'legacy' consists of nothing but presiding over a period of economic stability - much of the fuel for which was provided by entering office during the recovery from a massive downturn. Hardly something to make a permanent mark on Britain.
But Mr Blair does still have the potential to commit something far more lasting to British political life, and something which can cement his reputation. Better yet, it is something which would appeal to a man of his vanity.
If Labour loses the next election - probably under Mr Brown - Blair will be able to claim that he was the only Labour leader capable of winning power in the near forty years between the mid 1970s and perhaps 2009 or 2010. And capable of winning three times too. A golden age of sound Labour leadership!
It is now much in Tony Blair's interest to undermine Labour but without making it too obvious. What better way than to introduce new policies which he knows he will have to withdraw through a lack of support? That is what is now happening.
Mr Brown is well-placed to take over just as patience with Labour's loss of direction is becoming obvious. And too near the next election to do a great deal about it.
Mr Cameron's plan
It is a little early to be sure of Mr Cameron's game plan for the Tories but the press is already beginning to flutter its fans uncertainly. Plenty of talk about modernisation but little than can be pinned down to tell us what it implies in practice.
The biggest difficulty for any party leader is policy. You can't please everyone, and a case can be made against any specific proposal. It appears that Mr Cameron has decided to make a leap no party leader has dared to take before. Since policy is such a problem area, why not simply abolish policies? Policies are yesterday's thing with no place in a modernised party. The public need no longer trouble themselves trying to make sense of what the party will do, struggling through boring outdated manifestos. We have the assurance that 'the right thing will be done' so we need not trouble ourselves further. New Labour brought on the tactic very well, but never quite dared to make the final leap into full modernity.
Of course, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of policies. Voters do expect governments to have some notion of what they will do. This need can be met by a combination of generalised statements like 'reducing poverty' allied with a number of administrative measure plugged as major changes when they are not. Mr Cameron proposes that economic statistics should be provided by a body independent of government. Something like the BBC perhaps?
David Cameron now promises to reform the NHS but apparently to keep it in its giant statist form. More vast sums will no doubt be wasted. No change likely there. World poverty is to be at the forefront of Tory government concern. How exactly tiny Britain is to do much about it is a mystery, but the path is open for luxury taxpayer-funded trips round the world by Mr Cameron when things get sticky at home. You don't argue with fighting poverty.
The Tories have calculated that the pendulum is at last swinging in their direction and that all they need to do is keep their heads down and win the next election by default. Avoid distressing the proverbial metropolitan classes by issuing an endless stream of Guardian-style caring remarks and they should make it home.
Cameron says that he 'likes Britain as it is'. If Tony Blair has not lost his touch, it will not be long before he chides his opponent at Prime Minister's Questions by asking why he does not join Labour if he is so approving of their creation.
Britain desperately needs reform in umpteen major areas. The looming tragedy is now a Tory party which appears to be a reforming force but will, in fact, change nothing of any significance.
What we need in Britain is not Mr Cameron's new politics but the old politics where problems had to be addressed.
Quotes of the month
'Decline of family and community is matched at a national level by Britain's growing crisis of identity. The pernicious doctrine of multi-culturalism threatens to turn this country into a society without loyalty.
Here is this great country, the fourth largest economy in the world, which today offers itself like the meanest hooker simply as a place in which to live and work, rather than as a culture and flag to which anyone who moves here should be proud to sign up.'
Max Hastings - The Mail December 31 2005
'Weak teaching means a quarter of a million children a year cannot read, write and add up properly by the time they leave primary school, a damning Ofsted report has revealed. Four out of ten pupils leave without mastering the three Rs.'
The Mail December 14 2005
'Readers have risen to the challenge of supplying Tory leader David Cameron with 'happier expressions' for the terms 'benefit cheats', 'tax cuts' and 'illegal immigrants'. Alan White suggests 'negative taxpayers', 'social investment rebates' and 'probationary citizens'.
The Mail - December 27 2005
'The plot labours under a crushing burden of political correctness: one of the Stone brothers is deaf, gay, has a black boy friend, and is about to adopt a baby - a revelation that prompted hoots of laughter in our non-PC viewing theatre'.
Matthew Bond - Mail on Sunday December 18 2005

December 2005
What with all the excitement....
'The rapid rise of the Cameroons has been a splendid opportunity for the press to provide novelty.
After a decade of Labour dominance, some excitement can be introduced into political coverage. At last the years of British politics resembling Formula One are over - or are claimed to be. No more boring elections with the usual trail following a political Michael Schumacher to the chequered flag.
Labour's decline since the last General Election has been so swift that it would be a miracle if there were not signs of a return to the political pendulum. Add the novelty of someone with no track record of experience in government, or no 'form' to hang round their necks in another way of viewing it, and it is very likely indeed that the next election will not return a safe Labour majority. This column has never believed the Tories to be finished in terms of their ability to regain power. Our query is whether they would do anything differently from Labour.
What with all the excitement, and the wish not to kill off the goose who has given the media new avenues to sell its copy, little attention has been paid to what Cameron has actually said so far which might be divined to indicate what sort of government he might operate.
What little he has said seems to spell out no significant change being in prospect regarding any of the really big issues affecting Britain.
His first speech as leader produced the groansome ritual about 'too many white men in parliament'. Spot the difference from Labour! What Labour really seems to mean is 'too many white people in Britain'.
A Tory politician seeking to introduce a better and truly conservative way of doing things would not have said anything about the number of white men in parliament. He would have spoken of the need to get away from political correctness and to ensure that the best people regardless of race were promoted both in parliament and elsewhere.
On taxes there has been some meaningless weaseling about caring and sharing. On immigration the traditional backtracking after a single speech made his name as a radical. Cameron now says we must welcome immigrants needed by the economy. That can mean anything as he well understands. It is also identical to Labour's position. In fact, the only chink of light on offer is what appears to be a commitment to reducing the transfer of power to Brussels.
Tory thinking appears to be that they can now win the next election because of Labour fatigue and unpopularity. No need to provoke their backers or an establishment doing very nicely under Labour by offering any change that might reverse or even halt the precipitous decline of British society. The glamour and novelty of a new political set will be sufficient to sweep to power.
The prospect for Britain on the Tory showing so far is that Britain is in the grip of a form of government described by its worst critics. You can vote but you cannot change anything.
Bush's war plan
President Bush has announced that the US will not leave Iraq until total victory has been achieved.
The principal flaw in this plan is even bigger than the unlikely prospect of its achievement. Even if the US could install its ideal regime in Baghdad, the whole thing would collapse as soon as the USA left the country.
The end of the Iraq adventure is now inevitable. A new and future regime in Washington with no political investment in the war will save what little face it can and get out. Hopefully, in a little more dignified manner than the scramble for the last helicopter on the roof of the US embassy in Saigon.
Firm immigration controls
Immigration officers have been told by Labour not to detain illegal immigrants other than failed asylum seekers. The claimed reason is a lack of space in detention centres. The real reason is to avoid drawing attention to the vast numbers of illegals in Britain while making a show of removing those whose asylum claims have been rejected. The Prime Ministers pledge concerning that small segment of illegals is, it seems, all that matters.
When immigration officers and police expressed concern at a meeting, the head of removals, a certain Dave Roberts, told them: "I pay your wages. Do as you are told".
Mr Roberts has sized up the nature of this government pretty well and is no doubt familiar with what happened to Cardinal Wolsey when he failed to please. No wonder he's tetchy.
Quotes of the month
'Tony Blair's legacy won't be the Iraq war. It will be the way he has allowed people smugglers to usurp our borders and change the face of Britain for ever.'
The Sun December 8 2005
'I shudder to think what the total cost to the economy of acceding to the constant demands of minority lobby groups over the past 25 years has been.
Hundreds of these groups are happily trampling over the needs of the majority in this way - outlawing Christmas lights, banning religious jokes, stopping the Women's Institute from selling jam, censoring plays, insisting on councils writing everything in hundreds of languages and so on.
The longing to be loved has gone unrequited because virtually every other country and race has a monumental chip on its shoulder - and that chip is usually about the historical success of the English.
Why does the great silent majority put up with these abuses?'
Francis Fulford - The Mail November 26 2005
'Removing religion and what it is to be British from school has been a disaster. Where else are young people to go to learn ethics? Learning about 'citizenship' and trying not to offend any race or creed is not enough. That's why we've had bombers here. What this kind of teaching does is rob Britain of its feeling of community. And without our community we slip into a crime-riddled cesspool.'
Black youth worker Shaun Bailey - The Mail November 28 2005

November 2005
Integration? No thanks we're British
The notion that problems created by vast numbers of immigrants can be solved by 'integration' grows apace in currency - further driven by events in France.
Politicians, and all too many among the public, are preparing to cling to the proposed solution like drowning men seeing a waterlogged piece of wood.
The question not much asked is why immigrants would want to integrate, and what does the term mean anyway? What is implied, or perhaps what politicians want us to think, is that people of an entirely different racial origin and culture will cease to press for any recognition other than equal citizenship and the right to their private cultural practices within the law. These rights and recognitions, of course, are already enjoyed by ethnic groups in Britain so there will be nothing more to ask for.
Thus, sections of the community, and often sections choosing to live in their own enclaves, will decide to become ordinary British grunts having no more levers upon power and influence than the white working class.
The ethnics are, in fact, being asked to generously sacrifice the increasing power and influence they wield from an apprehension of trouble arising from their ranks, increasing numbers, and a degree of common purpose not commonly displayed by white Britons. The fabled 'community leaders' are being asked to sacrifice the positions they enjoy as front men for changing Britain to suit those with very different ideas of life in Britain to the majority.
Those with a realistic idea of human nature will not be expecting groups growing in power to voluntarily relinquish it. Indeed, many among them must think the idea a sign that politicians in the host community are barmy.
David Cameron
A foretaste of the degree to which David Cameron will get to grips with the dilemmas facing Britain, if he is elected leader of the Tories, was given recently by his comments on immigration.
Britain must welcome immigrants needed by its economy but immigration must be controlled.
Now there is not a cigarette paper to be inserted between Cameron's overview of immigration and what Labour says. Moreoever, Cameron's weasel words - as with Labour - would cover any level of immigration 'the needs of the economy' being such a flexible notion.
Since the Tories have a business lobby to please, which wants wages held down by immigration, the likely meaning of Camerons's words is a continuation of what Labour is doing.
Taking British jobs
The customary claim by those in positions of power concerning immigration is that it has no effect on the employment prospects of British workers.
The Royal Bank of Scotland has now broken with this great but farcical tradition in the face of increasing a rise in the numbers claimed to be in employment while the number of benefit claimants rises steadily. The bank says that the unemployed tend to be British while jobs are taken by new migrants.
The scale on which this is happening is, of course, far larger than it might appear from the rise in benefit claimant numbers. Immigration does not necessarily mean total unemployment for many people. It often means a reduction in the amount of work they can get. Full-time workers making a viable living become part-timers clinging on hoping for better times.
None of this is reflected in the official figures.
Quotes of the month
'This week Messrs Cameron and Davies will 'debate' on TV.
We'll decide who 'came across' best and pretend we're deciding on the issues. This is politics reduced to the accessible level of the Big Brother house, with only one question deciding the outcome: who among them is least likely to upset the status quo.'
Peter McKay - Mail on Sunday October 31 2005
'Arts minister David Lammy MP calls for more balck people in top culture jobs, saying subsidies might be cut if institutions don't become more 'diverse'. Are public institutions in Africa - or Guyana, from whence Mr Lammy's parents came in the 1950s - 'too black'. If so, should our subsidies to them be cut?'
The Mail October 28 2005
'Far from the claim that the French disturbances have been caused by a French policy of segregating Muslims into ghettos, this is a war being waged for separate development.
Some Muslims have even called for the introduction of the ancient Ottoman 'millet' system of autonomous development of different communities.
The director of the Great Mosque of Paris has previously that France should be regarded as a 'house of covenant', by which he appears to mean that France should enter into an agreement with its Muslims to grant them autonomy within the state.'
Melanie Phillips - The Mail November 7 2005

October 2005
Mr Phillips' nonsense
Increasing awareness of the very evident fact that multiculturalism is destroying our society has driven the head of the Commission for Racial Equality to make noises which appear to amount to a reversal of policy.
Trevor Phillips, the unelected boss of Labour's race propaganda machine, now pronounces on the required shape of British society. His every word is reported and pored over despite his having no qualification to do so except a degree of gift of the gab acquired as a reporter.
As always with the weasel words which make up most of Labour policy, Mr Phillips' pronouncements amount to little in practice except as a precursor for continuing with the same ruinous policies - but relabeled to suit changes in the political weather.
Whether Mr Phillips chooses to comprehend it or not, the policy of the political establishment in Britain is not to arrive at some balance where immigration on a huge scale is permitted while at the same time the rights of indigenous Britons are preserved. That is impossible. The real policy is the root and branch destruction of our society at the whim of the tiny minority who still believe in that great fantasy of the 20th century - a society rebuilt as utopia by political action entirely unbased on the realities of human nature.
What appears an admission of error by the oddly named CRE (which speaks of racial equality while most of its staff are black) is nothing of the sort. Whether Phillips be a dupe of higher powers, or knowingly speaks for their agenda, is irrelevant. Probably a little of both.
Destroying British society, while describing the process as 'equality', has run its course. The unfairness of a policy which amounts to blatant discrimination against whites often sailing close to the law - witness the Metropolitian Police's deterring of job applications from whites - has become all too obvious. It's time to rebrand, and the new line is 'integration'.
How is this new line to be interpreted? Phillips speaks of the need to learn English but the core of the matter is no different from the old policy of 'anti-racism'. What it amounts to is that more ethnics must be squeezed into Britain (Phllips rejects levels of immigration as irrelevant) and given a more prominent place. No change there then! Inevitably, whites must be further marginalised. All that has changed is that we are supposed to believe that we are parts of some grand social scheme rather than simply giving away our position out of guilt.
It's surprising that no one thought of this ingenious rebranding exercise before! What it will amount to is that no demands of any significant kind will be placed on ethnics (unless one believes in flying pigs, Mr Phillips will not wish to alienate his own people) but huge further demands will be made on whites.
Phillips admits that some British educational establishments have signs up saying 'whites keep out'. Does he plan to tackle this as a test of good faith? We doubt it. The stomach-churning meretriciousness of 'a nation of many colours combining to form a single rainbow' is much spin and no substance.
It is all typical New Labour.
The flimsy Tories
The plight of British political life was brought into sharp focus by the ups and downs of the contenders for leadership of the Tory party at their conference.
Support for the leading candidate, David Davis, collapsed following a good but light on substance speech by someone too young and inexperienced to be properly considered for the job. The Tories are so short of people with a suitable track record that one speech by David Cameron could put him in front.
It is not to devalue speaking ability in politics to say that a party so easily influenced gives all the appearances of lacking any firm sense of its own philosophy and objectives. That, unfortunately, is indeed the plight of the Tories. But equally unfortunately, the more the Tories twist and turn the worse their plight becomes. No one really knows what they believe in, and it does no service to their credibility when they make it obvious that they are casting around for something to believe in.
The shallow nature of Mr Cameron's bid for power was then exposed by his unwillingness to say whether he had ever taken drugs. It would be a miracle if he had not when drugs are so available and fashionable. The sensible approach by anyone with the weight to hold down a position like leader of the opposition would be to recognise that people can have taken drugs while also recognising the difficulty that those people who cannot control their appetites are led into by drug use.
It is perfectly possible to smoke tobacco or take alcohol while also arguing for controls over their sale and use. Yet too many politicians have boxed themselves into a corner where they refuse to answer about drug use. It convinces no one of anything, and merely emphasises how politicians run away from difficult topics.
The Tory's difficulty is not in being the nasty party. It is in being the party no one could vote into office with any clear idea of what it would mean.
A caricature
A black London policeman is suing for racial discrimination. Does he claim that he was held back in his career by prejudice? Well no. He claims he was overpromoted owing to political correctness, and then demoted when he was found not to be up to the job.
This is the sort of caricature which race relations have become in Britain.
Quotes of the month
'Schools and universities are now beginning something called 'Black History Month' which focuses exclusively on the Afro-Caribbean communities.
For all its political correctness, this is blatant discrimination. Can you imagine the outrage if anyone tried to promote 'White History Month'.'
Ray Honeyford - Daily Mail October 5 2005
'The Institute for Public Policy Research reported that immigration in the ten years to 2001 rose by more than 1.1 million.
The social costs of housing health and education for large numbers of immigrants and their dependents could well exceed any financial benefits.
Then again, can the overcrowded South East cope? And what of the charge that a growing army of pliant migrant labour encourages sections of the indigenous population to remain out of work, swelling our already bloated welfare bill?'
The Mail September 8 2005
'We continue to be battered with allegations of a cover-up over Ron Davies and another 'gay scandal'.
The best line that has never emerged was that when one of the police officers who went to the scene (on Wandsworth Common) said to Ron, 'Are you a minicab driver, because there have been a lot of attacks on minicab drivers?', Ron replied: 'No, I'm the Secretary of State for Wales'.'
A Spin Doctor's Diary by Lance Price - Mail on Sunday September 18 2005

September 2005
The bitter fruits
The question we have to force the people to face now is this: Who really is to blame for the bloodshed on Bloody Thursday - and its fortunately unsuccessful sequel - which has exposed the realities of Britain today? Do we blame the Muslim terrorists? Or do we blame the Labour-Liberal-Conservative political elite who let them into this country?
We have now tasted the bitter fruits of the multicultural, multifaith society. We now know what is really meant by the "vibrant, exciting cultural enrichment" that our political leaders promised us. Diversity means sharing our land with people who wish to destroy the "infidel", and who have every intention of putting their fanatical beliefs into practice.
Had there been a "No Immigration" policy when Enoch Powell demanded it, we would not now have been facing the threat of an Islamic Fifth Column in our own country. Even Powell's evocation of "a river foaming with much blood" did not foresee the role that a world-wide Muslim Jihad would play in destabilising the West. Powell's predictions, in fact, fell far short of the horrid truth. And all this we have to thank Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and all the other multiracialisers, who have done so much to advance the spread of Islam in Great Britain though their immigration policies.
Blair, in his ineffable triviality, declares that the terrorists will not deter us from carrying on with the routine of our daily lives - as if the aim of the terrorists is to make us late for work or interfere with our shopping sprees! Blair cannot face the reality of the terrorists' aims, which is to establish the world-wide rule of Islam, and nothing less.
To work for the establishment of a world-wide Muslim Caliphate and the submission of the whole of humanity to Islam is not the pipe-dream of a few isolated Muslim extremists - it is the clear and repeated command of Allah as taught in the Koran, and the acknowledged duty of every Muslim man and woman.
The liberals and the Establishment always like to pretend that support for terrorism is prevalent only among "a tiny minority"; this is a complacent self-delusion. In Northern Ireland at least 50% of the Roman Catholic population are sympathetic enough to the IRA to vote for their political wing, Sinn Fein, notwithstanding the opposition of the authorities of the Church and many leading figures in that community. Among Muslims in Great Britain, although support for Islamic terrorism is fairly limited in numbers at present, and although the Government is desperate to gain the support of moderate Muslim opinion at home and abroad in their fight against so-called "international (i.e. Islamic) terrorism", the momentum of events - Muslim insurgency, leading to counter-terrorist measures, leading to further Muslim disenchantment - will ensure that the Fifth Column within the British-domiciled Muslim community gains increasing credence, support and numbers.
The IRA terror campaign was, in truth, a limited fight in an isolated backwater over a petty parcel of land. The international Jihad is a world-wide struggle, fought by people who have an iron faith in the infallible truth of the Koran, and who are determined, no matter the cost, to establish the global domination of Islam over the entire planet.
And we have Blair and his multi racialist and mass-immigrationist allies to thank for allowing the Jihad to establish their bases in this poor, benighted land of ours. We are paying for Blair's folly with the blood of our loved ones. How long before we overthrow his tyranny?
Slavery
The United Nations has warned that two million people a year are being sold into slavery.
More people than ever before are being enslaved. The trade is world-wide. Even Britain is involved because of the policy of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. Women are brought into this country for sexual exploitation from East Europe, Asia and Africa.
As a country which abolished slavery in the 19th century, and set the Royal Navy to disrupt the trade, it is particularly shameful that Labour has allowed Britain to be involved in something once generally thought - largely because of the promoters of imperial guilt - to belong in the past.
The Battle of Britain
The shortly to be unveiled memorial to those who fought in the Battle of Britain has received not a penny towards its cost either from the Labour government or from the National Lottery.
Yet the Czech government contributed £52,000 to the memorial.
It has become tedious to keep pointing out that New Labour has no interest in Britain's history or heritage. What is rather surprising is that one would have expected the masters of spin to see an opportunity here for Tony Blair to strut about posing as a patriot whose administration backed the project. Perhaps they think public opinion to be now so cynical about Labour that it would prove counter-productive.
Quotes of the month
'Courts should let burglars off with community sentences, Britain's most senior judge said.
When you are paid a great deal of money, taken around in a chauffeur-driven car, have Special Branch officers to protect you and are treated with a reverence bordering on sycophancy by almost everyone with whom you come into contact, it must be easy to assume that this is a land of milk and honey where the few who stray can be brought back to the fold by mildness and reason. Such, we must fear, is the blissful planet Lord Woolf inhabits.'
Simon Heffer - Daily Mail August 18 2005
'This week's edition of Nice Work comes from Cardiff where the local council is advertising for a Keeping in Touch Co-ordinator. "Working closely with partners and young people you will play a critical role in the development of strategies". Call it £27,411 a year and one for yourself.'
Richard Littlejohn - The Sun August 23 2005
'The BBC is to abandon its stupid 'idents', little films of disabled Rastas dancing in wheelchairs, skateboarders hurtling through deserted docks and Tai Chi losers lurking by docks.
Please don't do this BBC. It is a constant reminder that you are what you are - a hopelessly PC, utterly biased organisation that wilfully rejects the Conservative cultural tradition and dislikes the fact that the word 'British' forms part of its name.'
Peter Hitchins - Mail on Sunday September 4 2005

July 2005
Appeasement fails
During the 1970s, public dismay at successive governments' blithe indifference to its objections to mass immigration necessitated a new approach to allaying its concerns.
For several decades, the tactic had been to claim that immigration was 'under control' and 'limited'. As some of our cities began to become unrecognisable, the falsity of official propaganda began to be too evident for political comfort.
A new tactic was adopted. What was happening was not simply the introduction of millions of people, who mostly had little in common with the British, but the construction of a splendid new type of society known as 'multicultural'.
The idea was that a society's strength would be greater the more racial and cultural strands were introduced into it. Difference would make living in Britain more varied and exciting - or in officialspeak 'vibrant'. Difference would also breed mutual respect from contact with novel ways of living.
Now there is a very obvious potential difficulty in this arrangement which was deliberately ignored - and continues to be ignored because of its inconvenience for a theory intended to reassure the public. Vigorous racial and cultural groups will wish to extend their influence and power. Where is a line to be drawn preventing the most vigorous - perhaps the most militant - groups from pushing others aside?
We were told that the degree of mutual esteem generated by contact with a rainbow society would ensure that no one would wish to do otherwise than support its continuance. A treading on other's toes would be inconceivable with such high ideals of mutual tolerance accepted by all.
As so often before with altruistic schemes for social improvement, demands were to be made upon human nature which were not going to be met.
As the years rolled on, and official credibility depended increasingly on maintaining the illusion that things were going to plan, cracks in the social edifice were met in a time-honoured manner. Appeasement of potentially troublesome groups was turned into a fine art.
New laws to deter freedom of speech were introduced. These were sparingly used in practice since the atmosphere of apprehension they created stifled dissent to a degree far greater than the laws themselves dictated.
A new caste of untouchables appeared known as 'community leaders'. These often self-appointed personages demanded and got a respectful hearing to which they were supposedly entitled not because of the large numbers of people they represented, or because of the strength of their case, but because of the very smallness of their constituency. To be a 'minority' was in itself to enjoy a special status.
Cash was readily on tap wherever discontent reared its head. The 'council grant' often replaced more vigorous social controls. In the most extreme cases, cash was sent in rather than the police.
Recognition that the most extreme brands of Islam were a potent threat to the illusion of limitless harmony between competing groups within Britain led to appeasement being taken to absurd lengths.
Blair's posturing about never giving in to terrorism had already been exposed as hollow in the simple methods employed to prevent IRA bombings on the mainland. The IRA was allowed to run its rackets and continue with violence provided it kept to Northern Ireland and refrained from the uses of explosives in large quantities.
The threat of Muslim terrorism was met in a similar manner. A lack of border controls, ample social security benefits for almost anyone coming to Britain, and a blind eye being turned to the most outrageous preaching of violence was thought to ensure that no sensible Muslim terrorist would wish to blow up Britain. To make doubly sure, a new law would be passed allowing the imprisonment of those expressing too vocal doubts about the objectives of religious groups.
The official line concerning the London bombings, which killed probably seventy people and maimed hundreds, is predictable. A tiny number of malcontents, perhaps from abroad, carried out an atrocity condemned by almost the entire community it claims to represent. That may well be factually true but misses the point.
Britain has imported militant cultures with no attachment to our way of life and whose expanding numbers cannot indefinitely be appeased into accepting themselves as one of a number of strands within society knowing their place.
The real threat to the British people is not bombers - whatever tragedy they can impose on the lives of individuals - but the demands which will be made in future by militant groups for Britain to be run in accordance with their beliefs. Appeasement will not work indefinitely in the face of their political demands, any more than it worked in deterring terrorism.
The bombings have served to distract attention from the far bigger issue of the instability of multiculturalism. Multiculti is a bomb waiting to go off, and one far larger than a few pounds of stolen or smuggled explosive.
It is a sad fact of life in Britain that, as yet, most people in our country - let alone politicians - would rather not have their attention drawn to the unexploded bomb under their feet.
Reaping the whirlwind
Page 4 National Edition (click to view pdf file)

Quotes of the month
'Cynics, some of them in the intelligence services, used to suggest that the Government's softly-softly approach towards Muslim militants was designed to protect Britain from terrorism. The sour joke had it that so many terrorists were using this country as a base from which to organise attacks on other people that they would not want to foul their own nests. If this view was ever tenable, it is no longer so.'
Max Hastings - Daily Mail July 8 2005
'Sir Ian Blair seems remarkably preoccupied with promoting himself and was all over the broadcast media yesterday after the attacks. But earlier in the day, his timing was, to put it mildly, unfortunate. For at 7.20 am, he boasted on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the Met was seen as the 'envy of the policing world in relation to counter-terrorism'.'
Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail July 8 2005
'The Blair government has institutionalised political correctness by requiring all public bodies and private companies with public contracts to not only be non-discriminatory but to prove they are non-discriminatory.
As proving a negative is impossible, public bodies and private contractors with public contracts are now reduced to ensuring they employ people from the groups of whom the politically correct approve regardless of whether the people are the best qualified for the job.'
Letters - Camden Journal July 7 2005

June 2005
The Tory dilemma
The Tories are finally being faced with the dilemma they have evaded for more than a decade.
Is the route to power emulating Labour's pretence that it can be all things to everyone or to strike out with a convincing statement of principles about what it stands for? The former route means adopting a political strategy of avoiding controversy about hard choices. By the time of the next election the voters may have had their fill of this variety of politics. The latter involves - most prominently - judging the likely future public mood about taxation and public expenditure.
A serious party would suffer no difficulty. If your party has no bold and coherent view about how Britain should be run then it has no legitimate authority to be in business. An assumption that the electoral pendulum would continue to swing substantially between Labour and the Tories has permitted them to come under the influence of increasingly cowardly politicians. Taking risks was not seen as worth troubling with.
The public, unfortunately for the Tories, have grasped this and the limited efforts made by Michael Howard to appear distinct were unconvincing. It looked to the public that the Tories did not really expect to win the election, and that their radical pledges on immigration, for example, would not have been made if there had been any real expectation of having to carry them out. When a party is not taken seriously even when it claims to offer a vigorous alternative it is in potentially terminal difficulty.
Their own chief strategist, recruited from Australia, says that they failed to be sufficiently different to Labour. But even if they had taken greater risks by being more radical would anyone have believed them?
None of the above implies that the Tories cannot win the next election. New Labour has little to look forward to but more painful exposure of its failings. But a Tory party with no coherent message will be further weakened and exposed for its hollow nature if it takes office. Even being in power with a huge majority has not saved Labour from this fate. It's membership has halved. Disillusion with the political class will worsen.
It is difficult to imagine the Tories ever regaining sufficient radical momentum to address the problems facing the country. Immigration and Europe are simply too big for them, for example. Even Margaret Thatcher, the most radical Tory leader since the war, failed to halt the transfer of power to Europe or seriously face the fact that Britain is a tiny densely populated country which should not embrace immigration on anything but the tiniest scale.
If the Tories cannot recover as a serious party, which is the most likely outcome, then those not content to be a part of the apathetic masses should organise to replace them in the longer run. At present, there are too many small groups unwilling to work together. The biggest political task for the right over the next few years is not to establish a reasonably coherent viewpoint in tune with public opinion. Most people now agree broadly with us. The urgent job is to persuade the supporters of a myriad of small groups that there is no way forward without cooperation.
France's shock election result
The Guardian ran a remarkable piece in the wake of the vote against the European constitution.
It quoted a French sociologist as saying that the country is now in a pre-revolutionary situation as a result of the detachment of the political class from the interests of the people, and their arrogant disdain for public opinion.
The Government's monumental misjudgement in assuming that it would receive the backing of voters for an EU superstate reflects how difficult it is for any entrenched regime to grasp that there may be limits to what it can do.
Quotes of the month
'At The Job Centre where I work on Merseyside I'm disturbed by surreal attempts to correct perceived ethnic imbalances. The human resources department has just coined this corker of a phrase: "To treat me equally, you might have to treat me differently."
Human resources departments are fond of telling us that we must treat everyone equally, while at the same time introducing schemes which openly discriminate against the majority of the people of this country. When reasonable people point out the hypocrisy inherent in this they're branded racist by the rabid multiculturalists who have infiltrated public life.'
Letters - Daily Mail June 8 2005
'Race relations commissar Trevor Phillips hated Enoch Powell's views on immigration so much that he even made a documentary for the BBC in which he broadcast an invented story to try to show he was a hypocrite.
Mr Phillips is now himself trumpeting one of Powell's fears about immigration, that unless there is integration we are at risk of riots.'
Simon Heffer - Daily Mail May 28 2005
'Egged on by intellectual elites, Europeans were encouraged to despise the civilisation that had nurtured them. The nation state was pronounced a hateful anachronism that had to be replaced by a pan-European superstate. The West’s defining values of enlightened tolerance and freedom were not superior to anyone else’s. Crime was the fault of its own unfair societies. Immigrants who came to its countries were not to be forced to live by its own rules but by theirs, even if that meant “honour” killings and jihad. The effort to produce tolerant, multicultural societies resulted in the paradox of radical liberal democracies such as the Netherlands enthusiastically nurturing forces at home that sought to destroy the freedoms in which they were being incubated.
But the challenge is now upon Europe. The longer it puts off the inevitable reforms - economic, social and political - the harder it will get. And if it chooses to defer a real response for ever, the greatest civilisation in the history of the planet will simply continue to sink beneath the waves of its own economic irrelevance and moral ennui.'
Gerard Baker - The Times June 3 2005

May 2005
Election thoughts
The General Election made three things about the condition of British democracy very clear.
The electoral system is blatantly biased in favour of Labour giving it a disproportionate number of seats when compared with the Liberal Democrats and Tories - let alone small parties. It also made clear how the big parties are reluctant to offer genuine alternatives which they vigorously pursue. Timidity rules. Lastly, all too many issues are now simply ignored because the big parties cannot answer criticism of their policies. We heard little about Europe - arguably one of the two most important issues facing the country together with immigration. We also, for example, heard little about the looming question of future energy supplies which appears to have no solution except the nuclear one.
A meaningful democracy must offer choices based on the big questions of the day and allow voters to reflect their preferences in the make-up of the House of Commons. But, little by little, these basic democratic rights are disappearing leaving a hollow shell of electoral procedure. Unfortunately, the public response is, at present, to reinforce its cynicism about politicians rather than to demand reform.
Our party's result in Wombourne showed in a small way, however, that something can be done. The public are willing to vote for alternatives if they are properly presented. We suspect that Cllr Edwards would have won easily if voters had fully appreciated the level of support she enjoys. The 'wasted vote' argument must have deterred some voters who would have supported her if they had known she was within distance of winning. Small parties need credibility as contenders before they can enjoy their full potential support.
Dutch immigration
Recent BBC TV coverage of the increasing numbers of Dutch folk leaving the country because of immigration displayed how things are changing.
The BBC, which has never missed an opportunity in the past to condemn anyone who does not believe in the benefits of immigration at any level, offered almost no criticism of those saying that immigration had reached such levels that they no longer felt at home. Many were leaving to start new lives in New Zealand.
Of course, the BBC was not applying the same principles to Britain - a far more dangerous matter for the political establishment. But it cannot be long before the realities to which the right has drawn attention for many years - to a chorus of derision - are accepted as a correct analysis.
Quote of the month
'The headline above Mary Kenny’s Comment (May 2) tells us: “Our idle, yobbish dysfunctional society can do nothing but benefit from immigration”. On the contrary, immigration can perpetuate and worsen those serious problems, and add new ones.
Delusions about immigration abound, notably the idea that an influx of “cheap labour” is good for the economy. In reality it maintains unemployment and exacerbates the low-wage poverty and inequality which all rational social policy should seek to minimise. Of course employers benefit, but in the end the taxpayer must top up low wages through welfare and subsidised housing. In the long run, there is no such thing as cheap legal labour in a welfare society.
Much worse, it tempts us to side-step the solution of difficult political issues, including reforming the training, education and motivation of millions of the existing population, young and not so young, who are economically inactive, and rethinking the perverse welfare incentives that keep them so.
Permanent dependence on immigration is impossible. The supply of Estonian nannies, Warsaw waitresses and brickies from Bratislava will dry up - birth rates in Eastern Europe have been rock bottom since the early 1990s. In due course the only places with surplus population will be Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen and the like.
There are more important things than dusting the ornaments in Ms Kenny’s lounge. One of them is building a more sustainable society without writing off the demoralised natives and driving population growth through the roof.
Letters - Oxford Professor of Demography David Coleman The Times May 6 2005

April 2005
Election time
Now that the General Election is at last upon us it is difficult to decide whether the result matters or makes no difference.
The main parties have between them created a situation in which voters increasingly conclude that there is little difference between them as regards the general state of the nation which can be expected under their administration.
Under all three, at varying speed, the corrosion of our society will continue and power will drift further towards the EU. There is simply not the radical will to resist.
On the other hand, there are substantial differences from the viewpoint of particular groups and individuals. Those belonging to the particular client groups favoured by each party may be very materially affected by the result of the election. It is difficult, for example, to see why anyone who works for government should vote elsewhere than Labour - at least if narrow self-interest is the only consideration. It is the party most likely to put more money into the increasing army employed in the public sector
The public generally have been left with little genuine democratic choice where the big parties are concerned. All three have arrived at a political formula which is more designed to avoid trouble than secure the future of the nation. Small sweeties are handed out to a multitude of different interests, and controversy is avoided by a huge apparatus of politically correct initiatives. No one must be offended according to the rules of PC.
Thus British politics is deadlocked in short-term considerations. Any party breaking ranks will be attacked, and, with taking power at stake, few will venture outside the safety of the formulaic politics which suits the political establishment.
The turnout for the general election may be low, if those all too aware of the lack of profound differences between the parties decide not to trouble voting. If may well be high if those equally aware of short-term advantage decide that there are sufficient differences to justify voting. This election is unusually unpredictable.
But whatever the turnout or result, nothing will substantially change.
What can be done in such circumstances? What is needed to break the deadlock in our politics?
The answer - short of internal revolution inside the big parties - must lie with electing outsiders. Only independents and representatives of small parties have real freedom to speak out. Parliament and local councils could be shaken to their roots by even a small number of such people. The argument that small parties like our own, for example, are not relevant or a wasted vote is simply untrue.
We urge our readers to support candidates outside the big party system. The Freedom Party can only cover a small area of the country, and we, naturally, solicit your vote if you are within that area. But there are many other groups and individuals elsewhere for you to vote for.
A remedy for our nation's decline can only be generated initially from the grass roots. We ask you to put aside the bidding war between the big parties dispensing small favours, and vote for the seeding of radical change.
Charles Murray's dispiriting vision
The American social commentator Charles Murray recently issued a dispiriting warning about what will happen in Britain concerning what has become known since the 1970s as the 'underclass'.
Murray says that what will happen here will track what has already happened in the United States.
Since the 1960s, when stable relationships within which children were raised began to go out of fashion, a growing class of unemployed people has appeared often drifting in and out of crime and living much of their lives on state benefits.
In the United States, says Murray, it was thought that state programmes could remedy the problem by drawing back the underclass into the mainstream - training, guaranteed jobs and so on. The multitude of programmes were always represented in the press as achieving magnificent results in the short-term. In the longer term they were utterly ineffectual.
But, in the United States, the underclass, which some years ago was such an obvious feature on the streets driving down the quality of life in whole neighbourhoods, is no longer a great concern. Yet it has not shrunk in numbers.
What has happened is that American society has dealt with the problem not by tackling the causes but simply by a social apartheid. Mass imprisonment and social segregation of the underclass into particular areas and schools is now standard procedure. No one imagines any more that social inclusiveness will resolve anything.
Politicians have funked addressing the underlying issues because of the political difficulty in tackling welfarism. British politicians, heedless of the US experience, still rely on 'programmes' which make good press copy but make no real difference.
But, sooner or later, politicians like Giuliani in New York will come forward in Britain to protect the ease of the better off by segregating the unsocialised and unemployable. Murray calls it 'custodial democracy'. This will begin to happen in Britain within ten or so years, he says.
It is the clearest example of the failure of mainstream politics to address the big issues facing Britain. When social discomfort among the better off becomes too great and prolonged to be politically ignored we will further divide British society as the United States has done.
UKIP's immigration fudge
"UKIP does NOT favour the application of quotas either for legal immigrants or for refugees. We believe the above measures, properly applied, will sufficiently limit the numbers taking up residence here and we shall then, once again, be able to make them all welcome."
UKIP is notoriously cowardly about addressing immigration into Britain. One might have supposed that - now even the Tories are being a little more vigorous about the subject - UKIP would have found the courage to speak out firmly as most of its members would like.
Note then the interesting choice of words in the excerpt from their election manifesto above. After a preamble concerning the need for greater controls on immigration we get to the characteristic UKIP fudge which has been the despair of so many. It speaks of 'making them all welcome'.
UKIP looks two ways at once again!
Quotes of the month
'The social fracture taking place in London will soon overtake the rest of the country.
We are seeing the pernicious effects of both the hip-hop gangsta lifestyle and the liberal approach to racism. As a socialist, I believe we have descended into a victim culture where the "victims" target their supposed oppressors. Whatever they do is justified because they live in the "ghetto". The ghetto is all in the mind but that does not matter because their peer group all thinks the same.
Where I live three miles from Brixton, I have seen the gradual disintegration of the community in the past three years. The influx of newcomers has intimidated locals. People no longer acknowledge each other and crime is steadily rising.
What is happening from Hackney to Croydon risks leading to the American experience of "white flight".
Letters - Evening Standard March 24 2005
'The NHS is wasting billions but still not treating people. Billions are being pumped into education yet the only way the Government can meet its targets is to abandon them. Vast sums are wasted on projects of social engineering. Unmotivated and uneducable young people are to be bribed £75 a week to stay on at school. Business complains that it is being regulated out of any chance of being able to take on competitors.
Welcome to Gordon Brown's wonderful world of 'fairness' and 'social justice'.
Mr Brown enjoys an untouchable status in the Labour movement. It is probably because the media is so busy hating Mr Blair that Mr Brown has got away with his charlatancy for so long.
Simon Heffer Daily Mail March 26 2005
'The idea of truth has given way to moral relativism, which turns everything into an equal opinion. It is designed to bring about the death of Western society.
Its hallmarks are mass promiscuity, the breakdown of the family, the rise of mass fatherlessness, the epidemics of casual abortion and sexually transmitted diseases, the decline in the birth rate within marriage, and the creeping acceptance of euthanasia, along with legalisation of drugs. All these things are evidence of a culture bent on mass suicide.'
Melanie Phillips Daily Mail April 4 2005
'My objection to Labour is its leadership of a cultural revolution that is obviously directed at stripping us of our liberties.
It is not, of course, a revolution that began in 1997. It has been a project for at least the past half century of our entire ruling class, which I will define - yet again - as the sum of political, administrative, educational, legal media and business interests that gain status and income from an enlarged and active state: perhaps we can also call this the Enemy class by virtue of its object: But there is no doubt that the revolution was greatly hastened when the present Government came into office.
I should also say that the overt intention of these people is not always to make us into slaves. Some, no doubt, just want more money and privilege for themselves, and do not care to think about what this means for the rest of us. Some genuinely want to create a better world, and find that the existing order of liberty gets in the way of this. Of course, I have no sympathy for this object. I can understand that the French Jacobins did not realise what they were doing. I can just about feel for some of the Communists at the end of the Great War. But we now have a 200 year experience of the fact that every road to Utopia is covered with corpses, and these people ought to know better.'
Sean Gabb - Libertarian Alliance April 2005

March 2005
The Labour mystery again
The general election is now thought to be imminent - unless Labour has changed its apparent mind in view of increasing disillusionment in the country, and thinks it best to wait a little.
The sly presentational techniques upon which Labour has based its governmental style have now caught up with it with a vengeance - techniques rooted in the slippery personality and style of the Prime Minister.
Yet, despite that fact that it is now quite clear that it is composed of recidivists entirely incapable of any reform, it retains a lead in polls - at least in so far as they can be believed. How can this be explained? Most other governments would have sunk by this stage.
Many attempts have been made to explain Labour's dominance, most depending on stability of the economy in isolation. Comparative stability is not what was expected of Labour and it has reassured the wider public. But none of the explanations are entirely convincing when there is so much doubt about most of what Labour does.
The most compelling explanation has been offered by Frank Field. One of the few Labour MPs willing to speak his mind, Field explains Labour's position from the viewpoint of the big picture concerning why it enjoys support in general rather than from the perspective of recent success or failure.
Labour's social policies, says Field, often appal it's own supporters. Given their way, social policy on such matters as immigration would have more in common with the far right than the left. But they support Labour, holding their noses, because they believe that Labour governments will look after them economically. A far more calculated position than the old refrain about "My dad voted Labour and his dad before him".
If Labour's core supporters cease to believe the above, a political cataclysm awaits the party sooner or later. And one which, says Field, can arrive very suddenly when patience snaps.
Immigration could be the issue which brings matters to a head. Yet Labour refuses to take seriously the reservations either of its own supporters, or the country at large. Mass permanent unlimited migration is the policy, and any attempt to seriously debate the matter is met with the usual platitudes about diversity, and crude condemnation of any other viewpoint as 'racist' 'bigoted' and so on.
But it can no longer be concealed that migration is beginning to seriously threaten many members of Labour natural support base - including ethnic groups. The adverse effects partially been prevented by the lack of an economic downturn, and the Government's policy of trying to take on people in the public sector as fast as they are being shed by parts of the private sector.
In a downturn, Labour's room for manoeuvre will be seriously limited when falling tax revenues meet rising unemployment. Economic protection of the natural supporter base by the means chosen can only be maintained for so long. Anyone can see that vast mumbers of foreign workers are massing in our cities willing to undercut British workers. Labour has no mechanism to reduce their numbers in a downturn.
Labour has, in fact, abandoned one of its traditional roles of defending wages paid in the private sector. The minimum wage serves more to reduce the role of government in being forced to support people with top ups from the tax payer than to maintain decent wage levels. Even African cleaners at the House of Commons have demonstrated against low wages. And the minimum wage is increasingly evaded by expansion of the twilight world of foreign workers in the black economy.
Sick benefits have provided a convenient means of parking the unemployed, who might naturally support Labour, on incomes which are not as low as the dole. But the expansion of numbers has now reached its political limits. The Tories, of course, pioneered the use of the 'sick' as a political game. They used up most of the political limits before Labour even took power.
Put everything together, and the economic protection of Labour's core supporters looks to be on increasingly shaky ground. Add general irritation about immigration, crime and so on, and particularly the feeling that those who work are being taken for a ride to support the feckless. It's is all a far cry from the old Labour dream of good wages and secure employment provided by political levers able to lean on the private economy in tandem with a huge but productive public sector which directly guaranteed wages and employment.
Labour's great compact between acceptance of disliked social policies, and hoped for economic benefit, may be on its last legs.

Is anything Labour says true?
More and more people now question whether anything they are told by the Labour government is actually true.
It now transpires, following enquiries by the national auditors, that the increase in the number of teachers claimed by Labour is a mirage. The apparent increase was arranged by the simple expedient of including in teacher numbers more than 100,000 ancillary staff.
Crisis in Sweden
The Prime Minister of Sweden has been forced to intervene in the major crisis facing the country. It has emerged that IKEA flat pack instruction leaflets do not show women putting furniture together. IKEA is now to include as many women as possible in its instructions.
It is difficult to believe that Sweden - a foremost example of progressive thinking - could have allowed such a human rights atrocity to take place.
Britain must now closely examine its own full range of instructional material to ensure that we are not guilty of similar human rights infringements.
Among the jobs which will need to be particularly closely looked at are changing sump oil, clearing drains, and digging out tree roots.
Quotes of the month
'Is Europe giving way to blackmail?
The question was raised in Germany last month by an article in Die Welt, the country's most heavyweight paper, by Mathias Dúpfner, head of the big Axel Springer publishing group. He titled it Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice. He said that a crusade is under way "by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open western societies " that is set upon the "utter destruction" of western civilisation. This enemy, he said, was spurred on by "tolerance" and "accommodation", which were taken as signs of weakness. Europe's supine response, he said, was on a par with the appeasement of Hitler.'
Sunday Times February 27 2005
'The key to Labour's sheer unpleasantness and amorality is the background of so many of its senior ministers. Several of them started off as thuggish student union officials with hard-Left political obsessions.
In those guises they were taught the importance of propaganda: the importance of trampling over anyone in your way, and of telling a lie so frequently that it becomes, to all intents and purposes, the truth.'
Simon Heffer Daily Mail February 16 2005
'One in twenty asylum seekers is HIV positive and it can cost the NHS £150,000 to treat each of them, a team of AIDS doctors has said.
So, even if only 10,000 asylum-seeking HIV cases have come into the NHS, they are likely to have cost £1.5 billion, enough to build 15 general hospitals.'
Daily Mail March 7 2005

February 2005

A theory of injustice
Just this month, we read in the newspapers of 'white flight' from British cities.
A remarkable turnabout in our affairs. That such headlines could appear in major British newspapers was unthinkable even five years ago. No credit can be given to the journalistic profession. They avoided such issues for years when it was obvious what was happening to Britain.
We also read about how a scout group which had been refused a lottery grant on grounds of being too white, and therefore not 'disadvantaged'. The writer of this column also noticed a jobs fair run with ratepayers' money by a left-wing local authority. The leaflet advertising the event pictured seventeen 'workers'. Not one was a white man.
Such situations are occurring all over the country.
An immediate reaction is that those in power simply favour client groups upon which their power is based, and now do it so openly that it must be presumed that they believe themselves so entrenched in power that they are untouchable.
But this underestimates the subtlety of the liberal/left, and the ingenious manner in which they construct ideology which can be perverted in their own interests.
The line taken by the dispensers of lottery money is that that they prioritise the disadvantaged. This puts an interesting slant on the word 'community', which is liberally sprinkled around any utterance from the apparatchiks who control the purse. 'Community' is no longer the generality of us, and worthy causes among us, but specific groups. The same principles apply to endless local authorities, government organisations and so on.
To understand what is happening it is necessary to comprehend that what is done is based on a theory of how society should be run, and, specifically, what can be considered social justice.
There are many ways of defining a just society. The simplest would be to say that everyone has the right to keep what they have and no obligation to share with anyone else however badly-off.
But modern societies take a more complex view of matters, reasoning that the worst-off should be helped.
The philosopher John Rawls offered one version of the just society at just the right time for the requirements of the liberal/left who were then making their long march through British society.
During the 1970s, he suggested that a just society would offer everyone equal opportunity. But where opportunity was unequal, it should be arranged to benefit the disadvantaged. Like many social theories, it all sounds very reasonable, but, as always, the devil is in the practical application.
A vital element in proceedings was that the decision as to who should be registered as disadvantaged was to be made by those ignorant of whether they personally would benefit from engineered inequality.
Now this apparently highly theoretical and academic consideration is nothing of the kind. Few people will trouble to look into such a dry matter, and this is what has given the left their opportunity.
The entire edifice of political correctness is built round a misuse of Rawl's theory of justice - but few appear to have noticed. Misused, it becomes a theory of injustice.
Those who choose who it is to be given a leg-up are not disinterested parties ignorant about who will benefit in the outturn. They are active participants in arranging matters to help themselves - either very directly - New Labourite well-paid jobs dispensed to themselves, or indirectly - in the promotion of favoured groupings which will reward them with political support.
Challenge the racket and you will be told that you must be a person who favours injustice. Do you not want to see those famous 'marginalised' groups benefiting from an alleviation of their 'special needs'? An arcane language has grown up around the theory of injustice employed by the left to advance themselves.
The world is turned upside down, with much of society occupied with obtaining the coveted 'victim status' which will often open the doors to a well-paid job - or a job in the first place - and an especially favourable eye cast on one by government.
It needs no emphasis that white people are unlikely in general to be classified as being victims. Nor white men looking for work in one London borough. Nor white children needing a scout hut.
What started as a system of promoting justice has become a deeply divisive injustice, where resentment is sown and complainants can be traduced as favouring injustice. Equality has become a classic Orwellian sham in which some are more equal - in fact unequal. As a director of the RNLI said, if you treat people equally you are doing the wrong thing. But those in power increasingly rely on the entire structure to keep their positions. Reform is impossible without a root and branch change to power structures.
So seething resentment fuels existing resentment. A resentment which even the national newspapers with their interest in keeping those in power as useful allies cannot contain.
Quotes of the month
'The Times has established that the regional lottery committees that determine grant applications are not required to set aside any of their budget to support projects which fall outside the rigid “disadvantage” criteria that has been set out. A director of one of Britain’s best-loved charities, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, labelled the policy an “absurd” example of “political correctness gone mad”.
David Brann, the RNLI’s director of fundraising and communications, said the charity had not applied for any grants because lottery organisers had made it clear that none would be successful. “As a search-and-rescue organisation, we don’t fit into the fund’s aims and objectives because we don’t discriminate against anyone,” he said.'
The Times February 12 2005
'While the PM tried to explain himself, the camera caught the face of a young woman who looked down at the Premier with all the distaste of a pedestrian enountering a dog mess.
'Democracy is a people concept!' wailed Tony, hand-waving hard.'
Quentin Letts Daily Mail January 31 2005
'Only days before the vaunted 'elections', Human Rights Watch revealed that the new 'democratic' Iraqi regime is already using the standard methods of the region against those it dislikes - electric shocks to the genitals, beatings with heavy cables, hanging prisoners by their wrists.'
Peter Hitchins Mail on Sunday February 6 2005
'The economic arguments for mass immigration are flawed.
We have a declining birth rate which means we need an increase in the working population to support the growing number of pensioners.
But the solution is to allow people to work longer. In the long-term immigration brings no economic dividend since immigrants also become pensioners and increase the burden on the state.'
Labour MP Roger Godsiff Daily Mail February 1 2005

January 2005
Sweatshop Britain
The Guardian has finally admitted what has been obvious for several years in increasing areas of Britain. Vast and increasing numbers of illegal immigrants are working as sweatshop labour and outside the law.
The house journal of the Labour political establishment and its clients says that the scale of the flow of migrants has not been seen as a fit subject for discussion since this might 'play into the hands of the right'. So we are to be deceived if possible about an issue which the Guardian itself says is now so substantial in scale that it is a 'major factor in Britain's economic competitiveness'.
The Guardian has, of course, broken cover because it can hardly continue to ignore the obvious while retaining any credibility.
But the Guardian's astonishing suggestion that 'economic competitiveness' is enhanced by illegal immigrants working for starvation wages must imply that such a situation is a good thing - and that more of the same would presumably be even better! This is what the party of the working man has come to. The lower wages can be forced the better the state of the economy.
But the term 'economic competitiveness' is ideal for the sort of slight of hand engaged in by Labour and it's friends. Sounding technical in nature and intrinsically beneficial, and thus daunting for the uninformed to challenge, it can successfully deter examination by those fearing to be shown up as ignorant. Cosmetic manufacturers employ the same methods when they proclaim that their latest gunge contains laboratory tested Formula XYZ.
The point of a sanely run economy is to improve the lot of the general mass of the population. But Labour's national labour market policy becomes clearer by the day. It is to create a sweatshop economy in which wages are forced down by immigration. No wonder the Guardian does not want to give comfort to the right. We have been correctly pointing out for many years that immigration is a cheap labour racket, and that 'diversity', 'multiculturalism' and such political paraphanalia, are merely devices to obscure and sanitise the real purposes of those in power.
Real economic competitiveness of a beneficial nature comes from increases in productivity brought about by investment in training and plant. This raises wages and improves the lot of the people. But the Labour government's policy is exactly the reverse - a perversion of policy. It is to boost profits by reducing wages. That certainly offers a boost to the economy in the sense of pleasing firms. One could make them even more pleased by providing slave labour! Indeed, if firms can boost their profits in this manner they are unlikely to trouble themselves greatly seeking better methods of production.
Many of those sucked into the illegal or marginal part of the economy are now , in fact, legal immigrants from places like Eastern Europe who find that the ability of the gangmaster economy to provide cut-price labour has destroyed the prospects they thought they had of properly regulated employment.
Next in line, of course, come our own workers as Britain races to the bottom in the name of 'economic competitiveness'.
Crime
Labour has reacted with predictable fury to the report by Civitas saying that Britain's police are the worst in the developed world.
Rubbing salt into Labour's wounds, Civitas exposes the falsity of the political establishment's pretence that there is no serious problem with crime. The idea is one held by the ignorant according to the official intellectuals.
The poor performance of Britain's police is no mystery. It proceeds from the withdrawal of the police from the daily involvement and contact with the public as was once the case. It proceeds also from the creeping and inevitable pressure upon policemen - particularly at the senior level - to ape the social perspective of fashionable politicians. Their view - that one should not be too hard on criminals, who are at least partly victims - has now unhappily been confirmed by the just-announced refusal of the Home Office to strengthen the right of householders to defend themselves against burglars. Despite huge public and media concern, the message is still one of protecting the rights of criminals.
Until the politicians change their opinions it is unfortunately unlikely that even greater community participation by the police on its own will produce any lasting improvement in our lamentable situation.
Quotes of the month
'It appears safe to conclude from the evidence that the scale of illegal working (by migrants) is very substantial, larger than previously acknowledged, and a major factor in Britain's economic competitiveness.'
The Guardian January 11 2005
'As we enter the election year, the mood of the voting public has never been so glum, so reticent and, crucially for New Labour's prospects of a radical third term, so ready to believe the worst of politicians.
These are not my views but the evidence of focus groups we commissioned among key voters in London and Birmingham who swung enthusiastically to New Labour on May 1 1997 but who now feel utterly betrayed. The findings revealed a shocking sense of bitterness and cynicism about New Labour and a powerful sense of insecurity about national identity. Across all the groups, New Labour politicians were "just a bunch of liars". The groups revealed a shocking sense of loss over what it means to be English - a loss made worse by what was seen as the latest waves of immigration. Blair, they said, "is anti-English". He supports "any country and religion, except the English".'
Neil Lawson The Guardian January 8 2005
'Under the slate roofs of a Lake District village, sinister figures are handling seditious literature. In a quiet café in Staveley, a man slides a pamphlet across the table. National Park Events 2004, says the cover. It gets even more disturbing inside, on page 16: "Gateway to the Lakes: a short but scenic walk. Climb through Craggy Wood to visit Potter Tarn.
The bespectacled man wants us to accompany him, to show us what free guided walks in the Lake District are like. Just how sinister he is becomes clear when he reveals his identity. He is Clive Langley, 60, a retired chartered surveyor. Quite clearly, he is white, middle-aged and middle class.
"You can't help it, can you?" he says, with a grin that suggests he isn't even ashamed.'
Sunday Telegraph January 9 2005
'The Queen's claim in her Christmas message that 'diversity is a strength not a threat' is an endorsement of multiculturalism rather than full integration. This is a controversial project which a growing number of reasonable people reject.
We are told that she is above politics. I fear it is the other way round. Rightly fearing abolition by New Labour, she seeks to appease them. It won't work.
They will get rid of the Crown as soon as they think they can get away with it.'
Peter Hitchins Daily Mail January 2 2005
'The Provisional IRA has been blamed for looting the Northern Bank of £26.5 million. Even the Guardian, usually an enthusiastic supporter of Irish republicanism, admits: 'Those who continue to vote for Sinn Fein should consider what they're doing'.'
Peter McKay Daily Mail January 10 2004

December 2004
Christmas 2004
The Freedom Party makes no claim to be the largest nationalist party in Britain. The substantial and growing readership of these web pages throughout the year is, we believe, because it provides a resource of considered ideas and biographical material difficult to find anywhere else. We do not provide sensation or political pornography.
Even ten years ago, the idea that organisations like ours could really reach out to anywhere in the world at virtually no cost to the reader, or ourselves, seemed far-fetched even to most of those who knew of the existence of the Web, which was then in its infancy. Yet almost everyone in developed countries now has access to the Internet either at home, at work, or in a library. It is already difficult to imagine the time when com