Labour tries to recapture English workers

IvanLewis2Bury South MP Ivan Lewis is the latest Labour spokesman to try to rediscover Labour’s links with English working class voters.  Mr Lewis is “shadow culture secretary” in Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet, and his outspoken comments come in a new volume of essays The Purple Book, published this week in advance of Labour’s conference at Liverpool at the end of September.

The title indicates an attempt by leading figures in Tony Blair’s New Labour to come to terms with the so-called “Blue Labour” critique of Blairism.  “Blue Labour” was a set of ideas associated with the Jewish academic Maurice Glasman (now Lord Glasman) and Searchlight‘s favourite Labour MP Jon Cruddas.  Their central insight was that in the pursuit of middle class floating voters, combined with liberal politically correct obsessions, New Labour had jettisoned the traditional values of their movement and was no longer seen by white working class voters as representing their tribal interests.

Lord Glasman was condemned by some of his former allies when he gave an interview this summer calling for a Labour anti-immigration policy:
Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first. The people who live here are the highest priority. We’ve got to listen and be with them. They’re in the right place – it’s us who’s not.

Ivan Lewis echoes some of these concerns in his own essay, as leaked to The Guardian, while not daring to go as far as Glasman.  The Bury MP writes:
The party’s instincts to be internationalist, liberal and champions of multicultural societies jar with the growing sense of insecurity of citizens buffeted by rapid economic and social change. Mistrust about Labour’s instincts and values on identity is one of the reasons why voters have rejected social democratic parties all over Europe.

He adds that these voters felt alienated from:
a system which to some appeared to favour receiving benefits and choosing not to work and irresponsible bankers who caused the financial crisis but continued to receive excessive payoffs and bonuses while everyone else was paying the price of their recklessness. Others felt migration was changing the nature of their community and undermining Britain’s way of life.

After acknowledging the effect of immigration on Britain’s housing crisis, Lewis shows his real agenda.  Far from seeking to restore the type of country that White Englishmen would recognise as their own, Lewis still wishes to make the Labour Party even more ethnically diverse, criticising:
a Labour Party activist base that while becoming diverse still does not sufficiently look like Britain.

There is one form of diversity however that causes particular upset to Ivan Lewis, who before becoming an MP was chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation:
Labour and the previous Tory governments should have acted earlier to tackle radicalisation in some Muslim communities by adopting a zero tolerance approach to anyone including religious leaders who preached hate, and by refusing to legitimise organisations unwilling to condemn extremism or the use of violence.

Notice Mr Lewis’s careful language.  He isn’t just talking about anti-British terrorism, he is insisting that organisations must condemn “the use of violence”.  It’s a fair bet that he doesn’t want to condemn the violence of the Israeli government in their assault on Gaza, and certainly not condemn the six decades of Zionist violence that forged the piracy of Palestine.

No: it’s a safe bet that Mr Lewis aims to force British based organisations to condemn anti-Israeli violence, in other words to take sides with the Zionist state against the people of Palestine and Lebanon.  The abandoned English working class are hoping for decent housing, jobs and health services; a crackdown on crime; and the reversal of more than half a century of mass immigration.  But Mr Lewis pays lip service to these concerns, while pursuing quite another, utterly alien agenda.

HMV Withdraws ‘Anyone But England’ Merchandise

The high street retailer HMV has withdrawn anti-English merchandise following complaints from members of the public and the Campaign for an English Parliament.

A police officer last week visited the HMV store in Kirkcaldy, Fife – part of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s constituency – to inform management of complaints about a range of ‘Anyone But England’ T-shirts.

For the full story click here [external link]

BNP activist cleared in court

LANCASHIRE EVENING POST, 21 June 2010: A BNP activist from Lancashire who wrote and distributed leaflets which blamed Muslims collectively for the heroin trade has been cleared of intending to incite religious hatred.

Tony BamberAnthony Bamber, 54, told a jury his intention was to create a debate about the “crime against humanity” that was the flow of the drug on to Britain’s streets.

He was responsible for heading a campaign which sent up to 30,000 of the leaflets by hand or post to targeted areas and individuals throughout the north of England over a 12-month period.

Bamber, of Greenbank Street, Preston pleaded not guilty to seven counts of distributing threatening written material intended to stir up religious hatred between March and November 2008. He was cleared by a jury at Preston Crown Court of all seven counts.

Representing himself, Bamber said there had been “no unpleasant incidents or social unrest” following the sending of the leaflets. Giving evidence last week, he explained they were targeted at educated professionals such as teachers, doctors, lawyers and clerics who were unlikely to take physical retribution against Muslims upon reading the literature. His aim was to create curiosity and interest which would then lead to a debate, he said.

Link to full article [external site]

Stop Anglophobia! Leicester (23/05/2010)

The Streets of Leicester, 23 May 2010:

May 23 2010 – Stop Anglophobia Demo: Leicester City Clock Tower.

Overall it was a fantastic turnout and a well executed peaceful demo against the continuous Anglophobia happening here in England and also its surrounding countries. Lets keep up the good work!

.

The English Shieldwall: http://englishshieldwall.weebly.com/support-us.html

.

Stop Anglophobia – Facebook Page/Photos

.

Stop Anglophobia – YouTube Video

Labour’s secret plan to lure immigrants was borderline treason – and plain stupid

Was this author was too scared to accuse the Cultural Marxists running New Labour of outright treason? The info obtained by Migration Watch in their Freedom of Information request proves, not just treason, but attempted genocide of whites within the British Isles. Racial nationalists have been vindicated.

Telegraph Blogs, 10 Feb 2010: Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

Link to full article [external site]

Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure migrants

 The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends. (Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.)

 DAILY TELEGRAPH, 9 Feb 2010: The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.

Link to full article [external site]

Journalists launch campaign to challenge BNP in run-up to election

If ever you needed proof of media bias (oh, and how Amnesty International doesn’t do what it’s constitution states it exists to do, namely: “to protect people wherever justice, fairness, freedom and truth are denied.”)…

Lefty Journalists’ organisation, 9 Feb 2010: Campaigning journalists and media workers are to launch EXPOSE, a campaign aimed at “revealing the undemocratic and racist nature” of the British National Party.

The new campaign will tackle the BNP’s “attempts to construct a respectable public image” and support media workers who refuse to work on uncritical programmes or material [emphasis added], the group announced today.

EXPOSE aims to brief reporters and news editors to help them challenge the BNP’s statements and spokespersons in the run-up to the UK election, the campaigners said.

A launch rally at the Amnesty UK headquarters in London on 23 February…

http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/537506.php? (Copy/paste link for full article, external site)

The Discrimination Bill – also known as the ‘Equality’ Bill

Even though this is Labour’s little ‘baby’, truth is Cameron’s lot are just as likely to go ahead with it if they win the next GE.

FROM THE TWISTED MIND OF HARRIET HARMAN, 07 Jan 2010:

October 2010

Most of the provisions of the [Discrimination Bill, known in ‘polite’ and deceitful circles as the] Equality Bill are expected to come into force as the Equality Act 2010. The purposes of this legislation are to harmonise the different strands of discrimination law and strengthen protection. Changes in the draft bill include:

  • Extending the prohibition on “associative and perceptive” discrimination and harassment to all discrimination strands. [I.e. If you were found guilty of discriminating against someone else and I perceived that you were discriminating against me, then you must have been!]
  • Employers will be explicitly liable for failing to prevent harassment by third parties. [I.e. Your employers will become the new Equality Thought Police to prevent themselves being heavily sued – thanks for your understanding, boss!]

Link to full article [England First – analysis]

The Equality Bill – It really is enough to make you weep

Even though this is Labour’s little ‘baby’, truth is Cameron’s lot are just as likely to go ahead with it if they win the next GE.

FROM THE TWISTED MIND OF HARRIET HARMAN, 07 Jan 2010:

October 2010

Most of the provisions of the [Discrimination Bill, known in ‘polite’ and deceitful circles as the] Equality Bill are expected to come into force as the Equality Act 2010. The purposes of this legislation are to harmonise the different strands of discrimination law and strengthen protection. Changes in the draft bill include:

  • Extending the prohibition on “associative and perceptive” discrimination and harassment to all discrimination strands. [I.e. If you were found guilty of discriminating against someone else and I perceived that you were discriminating against me, then you must have been!]
  • Employers will be explicitly liable for failing to prevent harassment by third parties. [I.e. Your employers will become the new Equality Thought Police to prevent themselves being heavily sued – thanks for your understanding, boss!]
  • Expanding the concept of positive action to allow employers to recruit or promote someone from an under-represented group where they have a choice between two or more “equally suitable” candidates. [I.e. More discrimination against white men, particularly white working-class men.]
  • Introducing the concept of a discrimination claim based on two combined characteristics where there may not be enough evidence to prove discrimination based on one characteristic alone. [“Iz it coz I iz a black queer?”]
  • Under the current proposals, there will be the potential for employees to claim direct sex discrimination in respect of pay and conditions based on a hypothetical comparator where there is no “equal” male-female. The majority of claims, therefore, should still be brought under the traditional equal pay concepts, rather than sex discrimination, but this new avenue will enable an individual to claim even where there is no actual comparator. [I.e. Where there wasn’t any evidence to prove sex discrimination in pay levels, all of a sudden we can invent it! Girl power!!]
  • An extension of age discrimination legislation to cover the provision of goods and services. [That one’s fair enough, actually.]
  • Introducing an “occupational requirement” defence across all protected characteristics and removing the job-specific “genuine occupational qualifications” in sex, gender reassignment and race cases. [I.e. Only only one-armed lesbian gypsies will be able to become One-Armed Lesbian Gypsy Outreach Workers. The rest of us won’t be able to complain we didn’t get the “job”… which is fair enough, actually… since we’ve got real jobs to be getting on with.]
  • Tribunals will be able to make recommendations that respondents who have lost discrimination claims take steps to remedy matters, not just for the benefit of the individual claimant, but also for the benefit of the wider workforce. Where the wider workforce is concerned, however, there is no remedy for failure to comply with the recommendation. [I.e. More tax-payers’ money will go to legal aid for lost cases to be resurrected for the ‘greater good’ of the poor and down-trodden victims, oops, minorities.]

“New poll shows why multi-culturalism works?”

Over at Pickled Politics, they seem to have gleefully pounced on the George Soros-funded survey of British Muslims, reported in the The Times (posted here), as ‘proof’ that multi-culturalism works. Remarkable that they failed to mention the blindingly obvious bias in the survey… The survey didn’t ask any white English people their views on the subject, let alone the white working-class who are the main ‘beneficiaries’ of enforced ‘enrichment’.

BLOGOSPHERE, 14 Dec 2009: The study and report is a slap in the face for right-wing dogma on the issues concerned for many reasons.

Firstly, it shows that Britain’s relaxed attitude to differences in religion and culture has made British Muslims more likely to identify with this country and be proud of the liberal traditions they live in, rather than constantly face state-sanctioned discrimination like in Switzerland and France.

Secondly, it shows that Muslims (and this goes for minorities generally) feel much more British than their parents. The figure for British born Muslims is 94% and similar for non-Muslim minorities. In other words the offspring of minorities end up taking the identity of the country they’re born in – rather than become the fifth columnists that right-wing columnists portray them as.

Third – Britain is a model for other European countries to follow. Not only for its relaxed attitude towards differences between people, but also because it is moving away from Britishness being defined as a genetic, ethnic or cultural identity. It’s the idea of a nation as a people together – whether towards a common purpose or towards commonly shared ideals, that makes it cohesive. Neither of these need to be defined by trying to exclude people, as Germany and France have consistently tried to do.

This is what makes Britain great and this is why the percentage of minorities who feel ‘British’ is so high.

Read full article [external link]

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter