Saturday, March 28, 2015

The BBC must be liberated from its dependency on the welfare state

SURELY THE time has arrived for the millions of British people who believe the BBC to have an in-built liberal bias, to voluntarily break the law and refuse to pay the licence tax. I am not fixated[1] by the BBC, but I truly resent having to pay £145 per annum in order for the proliferation of liberal views on such issues as membership of the EU, multiculturalism and immigration only to be presented as impartial. All three of these issues will shape and change our nation forever; and none of them have been put to the electorate for consideration - I call them the triumphret: these three great issues of the day which surpasses our nation's deficit in importance.
                
                There is a sinister purpose within the BBC to help complete and continue thereafter the liberalisation of the UK by applying Soviet-like practices to the art of broadcasting. No wonder George Orwell found his inspiration for 1984 from within the corridors of the BBC. There is an overwhelming belief in liberalism at the BBC that is comparable to a religious faith; and like a religious faith they act to protect it – and if any threat appears on the horizon to the inner faith, like Jeremy Clarkson, they will bide their time; as they have done with Clarkson.
                
                A million petitioners' protested against Clarkson's departure to no avail. He put himself where the BBC wanted him. He overreached himself. His none PC status within the BBC made him a liberal heretic. The corporation waited its moment until he overstepped the mark; which was sooner or later bound to happen with Jeremy Clarkson.
                
                So another enemy of the BBC culture was done away with at a multi-million pound cost to the BBC tax payers. In liberal terms Clarkson was seen as being an almost satanic presence within the BBC. But he was a popular presence earning the corporation millions in revenues not taken from the ordinary BBC tax payer.

BUT CLARKSON represents only an example. The whole BBC culture is wired to a liberal ethos and as far as the London metropolitan elite are concerned, what the BBC provides is targeted to them. While those who pay the yearly tax demanded of them by the BBC from without the London boundaries, can either be fined or imprisoned if they refuse to pay the BBC tax. The BBC has been given the power of the law to collect their income.
                
                 It is an irony that such a liberal institution has to resort to criminal law to keep itself solvent as an 'enterprise'. While in the private sector no such means exists. Sky, the great liberal Satan of broadcasting, cannot make the same kind of government backed demands upon their clientele that the BBC are given free rein to do.
                
                 The liberal bias of the BBC is unchallengeable. Even the BBC itself fails to respond to such claims because they know they are true; and to be fair to the BBC why should they if dopes like us continue to pay this wretched tax that the government gave them the ability to collect. The irony of such a liberal institution sending people to prison on such a minor basis is hypocrisy without border.

THE BBC is, and has always been, biased; which goes against its broadcasting remit. The supposed neutrality and impartiality of the BBC that was part of its original charter, has never existed even from its foundation in 1922 when it was first given its Royal charter. Its founder Lord Reith was no Lefty; he represented the establishment at the time which was wholly conservative; and until the 1960s the conservative hegemony ruled the culture of the BBC.
                
                 From the 1960s onwards the liberals prepared their takeover. In the 1960s the liberal left seized control and have consolidated it ever since. Thus we still have a bias at the BBC but no longer under the control of conservatism. Today the liberal hegemony has replaced the conservative one. And so the seesaw will continue until the BBC has been released from the grip of the state and released to survive or flounder within the market place – in any event it must be cut loose from dependence upon public taxation.
                
                 The BBC must break free of the tax payer and become part of the media market place, as any other ambitious media player has to. The BBC has been propped up for far too long by the taxpayer. It is time it travelled alone into the media market place and attempt to win over, through voluntary subscription, a new audience for its programming.
                
                 The British Broadcasting Corporation has always boasted its international superiority over other of its competitors. But such a boast has always been based upon a guaranteed income by the British tax payer of currently nearly £5 billion a year to do with whatever the BBC liked, regardless of failure.
                
                  No other broadcaster who has to compete in the media marketplace enjoys such a remit as parliament has given the BBC. If the BBC truly believes in their professional superiority over the commercial channels, then let the BBC prove it in the market from which it has been protected for so long by taxation.

IT IS NOW TIME for those millions who have a none-liberal but right of centre political views, who despise the liberal bias of the BBC to stand up and refuse to continue to pay the licence tax. It is no good complaining without acting. I do not watch the BBC, although I still, through direct debit, pay the tax demanded from me by them on penalty of a fine or imprisonment. I do this because I feel I am alone; and only by marshalling to my cause what I believe are the many hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of others who are being forced to pay this tax by the BBC, can this institution find its own way in the world by being liberated from the (welfare?) state.
                
                The BBC is a welfare scrounger par-excellence, afraid to compete in the market place and dependent on state handouts for its continued existence. It is an institution whose funding arrangements belong to another time. The Reithian ethos of impartiality has never been applied. Reith himself was a Tory and monarchist and he moulded the BBC accordingly.
                
                 If the BBC believes in public broadcasting then let them do what the public broadcasters do in the USA – let the BBC appeal directly to the public for funds given on a voluntary basis by people who believe in its public ethos whatever the inbuilt nature of its bias.
                
                 Every year, as well as bi-annually the BBC sets about on a night of fundraising for charities. At Christmas we have Pudsey; while every other year we have Red Nose Day whereby celebrities offer their services to raise money for all sorts of charitable causes. These worthwhile events must have raised billions since they first became fashionable. The BBC has proved itself first rate raisers of charitable funds; so why can they not do the same for themselves as public broadcasting does in America?
               

               
                                 

               



[1] Really.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Polemic: It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

Polemic: It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

THE COMMONS HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE has brought out a report that says by the time illegal immigrants reach Calais from southern and eastern Europe (were lax boarder controls match our own) it is too late to stop illegal immigrants landing on our shores. Today's Daily Express, quotes from  the committee report thus; "Free movement rules within the EU had wrongly assumed external borders would be secure…." It then added; "They are not, so free movement means free movement for illegal migrants within the EU.”
                
                Another aspect of the free movement of peoples within Europe that will cause tensions in the near future is the question of European wide colonial guilt. It was, after all, not only the British  but the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgium, and German colonial powers that subdued many parts of the world's continents under their particular form of colonial rule.
                
                So the colonial guilt that British liberals felt after the fall of our Empire, was also felt by our liberally minded European ex-colonial nations. What this means is that all of the guilt-ridden European liberals, like our own, believe that they owe (on our, the peoples behalf) the people from their one time colonies the right of citizenship; and this is what has taken place all over Europe.
                
               Once the people from these one-time colonies are given their right to become citizens within  the countries of Europe they were once ruled by; then, because of the European open boarder policy, these people (now being citizens of the EU) will have automatic access to the rest of Europe  – only a liberal conscience could create such an unsolvable conundrum and the dreadful accompanying possibility of once more in Europe, reprising the rise of another Hitler,  through their liberal naivety and total faith in multiculturalism.

BUT LET US GET BACK to the home affairs report on boarder controls for those migrants  from outside of the EU, and the suggestion that once they reach Calais the game is up. The home affairs committee literates what most of us already understood was the case anyway. We (that is our government) have tried, first of all to  blame the French in Calais for their somewhat languid approach to illegal immigrants  crossing the channel in lorries. We then offered a few million pounds to the mayor of Calais to beef up boarder control including exporting to Calais officers from our own already proven to be inefficient Boarder Control Agency to help with the task. But all too little effect, according to the Commons Home Affairs Committee.
                
                We are now approaching in Europe the expunging of each individual nations indigenous culture; first by multiculturalism and then by the EU. The EU seeks the demise of the nation state (in a fortunate, and yet inadvertent co-ordination with multiculturalism) and its replacement with the Greater Europe which Europe's past dictators Napoleon, Hitler, and (under the banner of the Communist international) Stalin, all tried to invoke in order to unite Europe. Multiculturalism enters this same stream of ideologically driven panaceas that both on the Left and the Right proved disastrous for Europe's citizens in the 20th century.          
                
                Mass immigration cannot be stopped because of multiculturalism and the people's fear of political correctness in opposing it:  which allows ever more immigrants, either illegals, or through European open borders, to take up residency in the UK. The indigenous white UK population have been forced through political correctness to always look over their shoulder, either in a pub, at work, or at a football match. We live in a PC society: our multicultural society will over time, create its own version of the East German Stasi who had neighbours spying upon neighbours to glean information they felt criticised the Communist state; as will no doubt the PC society who wish to oppose those who stand out against multiculturalism – only time will tell.

                 

Monday, March 23, 2015

The liberal Lubyanka that is the BBC

ANDREW BRIDGEN MP is on a mission to bring down a broadcasting Leviathan which demands on threat of imprisonment, and a hefty fine, a yearly tax of £5 billion from the British public. According to Bridgen; "On current trends, that will see 100 more people put in prison and over 300,000 citizens criminalised ". This Goliath of broadcasting goes by the name of the BBC: it demands financial remuneration from every television owner in the land: the tax is for the mere ownership of a television set – not for watching the BBC mind you, but just for owning a television
                
                The unfairness of this system would have been readily appreciated by medieval peasants who had to pay taxes of whatever value demanded by their robber barons and city sheriffs – such as the one immortalised in fiction through the story of Robin Hood.
                
                We are obliged to pay for services provided by the likes of the utility companies. When it comes to the energy companies we have a choice (if we wish to make it); when it comes to the BBC we have none; but when it comes to one of the BBC's  main competitors[1] – Sky: Rupert Murdock was given no such right by parliament to demand you pay him through taxation. You either bought into one or more of his services or you did not – the choice is yours. No one will be imprisoned or face a fine if they default with Sky; no one will be left with a prison record if they default with Sky. They will have their service terminated -  and even then Sky will welcome them back when they are financially able to buy their services once again when they become solvent.
               
                No prison and no fine; and no criminal record. Only a state regulated body such as the BBC would ever countenance either fining or gaoling a tax defrauder for owning a television set. This is madness: or it would be in a rational world; a world that the BBC governors and its chairman (sorry, chairperson) seems not to inhabit when it comes to broadcasting in the modern world. The BBC should no longer be able to go cap in hand to the politicians each year to increase the tax on television ownership, in the hope that they grant its yearly increase, and adding further to the prison population and criminalisation of BBC tax defaulters.

THE BBC has, over the decades, seen itself (along with politicians and a majority of the British people) as the finest broadcaster in the world. The institution was much loved by the British people (including myself). The term 'auntie' was a cosy reference that kept the population enamoured even under the Savile years in the 1970's and 80's.
                 
                 Andrew Bridgen referred to the BBC's mission statement and quoted the following; " [the BBC] exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain.” This implies at the very least, that objectivity free from all political bias, is the pre-requisite when it comes to educating and informing, as well as reporting, by a public broadcaster – the only part of this mission it has managed to live up to today, is to entertain (but even hear it is losing ground fast to it competitors).
                
                 The bias in the BBC on issues such as global warming, membership of the EU; multiculturalism, and immigration, cannot be disputed. The BBC's former employees have broken the silence on this institution's liberal bias. The BBC suffers the delusion that the nation is 100 per cent socially liberal and supports multiculturalism and immigration which gives them the right to dictate the liberal agenda that they support.

REALITY IS SOMETHING that, apparently, the BBC is out of tune with. They believe the whole UK  have bought into their multicultural liberal demesne; where they and they alone dictate the liberal agenda. They will not test this of course by doing away with the licence tax and allowing themselves to be cut adrift  into the private sector to survive on their own. The BBC dares not test its belief in its own superiority within the market place.
                
                 The BBC is becoming a liberal PRAVDA[2]; being allowed to continue by politicians who call themselves democratic. Now this broadcaster is looking into the possibility of charging the same licence tax for those who use its services on line. I firmly believe that the BBC believes themselves as vital to this nation's culture, as a water supply is to our people; and without it all cultural expression would be dead, and a new dark age would descend on these isles.
                
                  I doubt if Andrew Bridgen will ever accomplish his task of reigning in or better still doing away with the licence tax – but I wish him well in his attempt. 
               
               
               
               



[1] The BBC loathes any reference to competitors – especially Rupert.
[2] The old Soviet newspaper meaning 'truth'

Friday, March 20, 2015

Remember Bibi – you are only mortal

I WOULD HAVE loved to have been a fly on the wall of the Oval Office when Bibi Netanyahu had  finally been crowned the winner of the Israeli general election. The hugging-loving, golf-addicted, narcissist  president who now manages the affairs of the United States, and, God help us all, the world as well; must have been cursing the Gods when Bibi foiled his ambition to get rid of him via his interference in Israel's election.
               
                Sky News, and the BBC, were (using the Israeli exit polls) insisting it was neck and neck between the two candidates; and when Bibi Netanyahu appeared in front of the cameras to declare himself victor 'somewhat prematurely' they thought; the media must have thought he was attempting some kind coup. For such a declaration went against what they were telling their viewers in the desperate hope that the Left might still find a way of forming a coalition following the tight result they were predicting.
                
                 As it turned out Netanyahu, in terms of the Israeli system of proportional voting, achieved against every expectation from Western liberals – a landslide. Even if it only meant 30 seats: Likud can now govern comfortably with other centre-right parties.
                
                If you believe the liberal spin; the moment when Netanyahu made a final appeal to his voters on the eve of the poll, was the turning point. Why so? Well, because he warned his Likud constituency, and the other right of centre constituencies, that the Arab vote was being mustered to help keep a Likud coalition from office. Harretz, the left-wing Israeli equivalent to the  Guardian, was also reporting the same news independently of, and before Netanyahu's final appeal. But when Netanyahu warned his own voters of the same  news, he was called a racist.
                
                The Arab-Israelis account for 20% of the population and could therefore have had a significant impact on any Left of centre coalition if the Left had won the 30 seats the Likud Party achieved. Bibi Netanyahu knew this and he did what any shrewd politician would have done in similar circumstances (although, admittedly, there are very few circumstance to be compared to Israel's); he rallied his troops like Henry at Agincourt. He had earlier addressed the American Congress with a brilliant prĂ©cis of the threat to the West, as well as Israel, of Iranian nuclear ambitions.
                
                 His speech to Congress was Churchillian in its analysis; comparable to the great man's warnings in the UK parliament of the rise of Hitler in the 1930's. Like Bibi Netanyahu, Churchill was seen as a warmonger by his political enemies for forewarning of the danger to democracy of Hitler's rise to power. In this imaginary comparison I would place President Obama alongside Neville Chamberlain. At least Chamberlain was probably driven by memories of the First World War, and no doubt these played a part in  his judgement when it came to Hitler - but Obama has no such memory to excuse himself from trusting Iran.

ISRAEL, ALTHOUGH MANY on its Left cannot admit to it, is a country currently surrounded by enemies who wish the Israeli state dead and buried; and what after-ward will be left of the Jews, will be driven out and once more back into the Diaspora (ala Obama). The Palestinians want the territory that is Israel for their own. They want the Jews out – but the Western liberals chose to ignore the inherent racism of such an ambition; yet continue to support such an ambition: and they do so without realising that they themselves are racist in the true sense of the word by supporting such a manoeuvre. The liberals only hide behind a two state solution to justify their attack upon Israel. When however Hamas start landing its rockets onto Israeli soil and Israel has to respond for the sake of their own people's survival; the Western liberals go into disproportionality mode whenever Israel is forced to respond in the most effective they know way of defending their people.
                
             Bibi Netanyahu is Right-wing – and so what? Churchill was considered Right-wing; and in the mid 1930's was meeting the same response to his warnings  of the rise of Nazism in Germany as Netanyahu is meeting today over his warning to Congress about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
               
             The Israeli liberal opposition sought a trouble-free way  to a negotiated two state solution; when there is no such effortless way out. The Palestinians are determined to see the Jews evicted from the Middle East. If you do not believe it then read the Palestinian web-sites – particularly Hamas's.

THE STATE OF Israel is an unconditional entity. A Jewish state is as bona fide as, if not more so, than the United States of America who replaced their native Indians, in a kind of mini-holocaust, with the detritus from Europe over centuries to help make the modern USA.
               
                Israel has as much right to exist on this planet as any other nation: indeed far more so than those who, through colonialism, laid claim to the world – including America. The Jews were the original settlers of Judea. The wailing wall in Jerusalem was not constructed by Palestinians.
               
               Ancient Judea was ruled by who else but the Jews. The Jews are the rightful residents of ancient Judea, which is now part of modern Israel.

PRESIDENT OBAMA hoped that the liberal opposition to Likud would have won out. He could have then orchestrated a two-state solution with a friendly, and he hoped, easily manipulated, Left of centre Israeli government who he could have used his undoubted rhetorical ability upon to flatter; and  who he hopefully could have settled the long serving conflict between Palestinians and the Jews; and  thus by doing so helped transform his presidency into such greatness; that it could only be comparable to  that of Abraham Lincoln.
                
                Obama won his presidency on his undoubted gift for rhetoric. But words can only go so far. They may get him past the first hurdle into the White House; but when it comes to  praxis far more is required than Obama was able to deliver . He is a wordsmith; a rhetorician of the first mould and a showman. But he is not a practitioner of the political arts; just a rhetorician.
                
                 Bibi Netanyahu  is a master of the political game – and if Obama had, instead of removing the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office, had, like Bibi, studied the great man, he may not have found himself moping in the Oval Office today.  
                
                 Obama is first and foremost, America's first black president - this was his first ambition; because whatever he did afterward, this would have readily given himself his place in American presidential history  – even if he spent the majority of his time on the golf course during his second term; leaving the world to fend for itself.
               
               

               

                

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

The racket that is multiculturalism

'While beautiful in theory, in practice multiculturalism had become a racket '  Trevor Phillips

TREVOR PHILLIPS, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (yes, another  Quango), has finally said what most of us none liberals already knew: that liberal Britain, the supposed acme of tolerance, free speech and progressive views; has in fact acted as censor-in-chief  to any opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism by enlisting legislation to include hate crimes as a means of adding to our over populated prisons. On top of which, the casual references within the white indigenous population to nigger, sambo, paki, and the dozens of others, of what is now regarded as part of the racist lexicon; has been criminalised by the liberal ideology of multiculturalism.
                
                Bigotry would mean very little if a truly liberal progressive society was allowed it to flourish – at least free speech would have been protected and the Orwellian sounding hate crime would never have  been needed; as would the costly growth in prison cells needed to keep such views silent.
                
                There would, after all, be millions of anti-bigots to challenge the million or so bigots in a free society without reference to the criminal law to stop them expressing their opinions. The law should only intercede if a bigot went beyond a liberal society's cherished right to free expression, and tried to inflict physical harm on a member of any minority community: just as it would if a Jihadi set about beheading a British soldier in a part of London.
                
                 It is not bigotry that should be tolerated, but free speech. But under multiculturalism, where many dozens of different minority cultures are expected to live side by side (note, I do not use the term integrate, for this can never happen within multiculturalism, with its ethos of diversity) free speech has been strangled by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is comparable to a cyclone silently gathering  its strength before finally imposing its destructive energy upon free speech; that salient feature of a liberal society.
               
                 Multiculturalism has been described as a 'beautiful theory' by Trevor Phillips. If he truly understands it; then it was never beautiful in any empirical or metaphysical meaning of the word. There is a saying that birds of a feather flock together. But as far as the white indigenous population are concerned this saying would be considered racist under the aegis of multiculturalism. But as far as the dozens of other cultures that are allowed board and lodging, and eventually citizenship in the UK; they are perfectly entitled to keep themselves apart from each other without being considered racist by the liberal hegemony and its multicultural cure-all for human inter racial conflict.

TREVOR PHILLIPS, I feel, is now trying to save his own skin by his               great multicultural rethink. When did such a change of heart first take place after all? Can Mr Phillips honestly say that multiculturalism was doomed to failure when he first took up his role as the chairman of  the Equality and Human Rights Commission? He now says that multiculturalism was a 'beautiful theory'. A theory that he must have once must have supported – for no-one supports an ugly theory.
                
                Perhaps he was naive. I was naive in my youth when I became a Marxist; but now at 65 the past is a foreign country to me and I only look to what is left of my future. I try never to look back (only for reference). But I do not think that Trevor Phillips can blame the naivety of youth for his mistaken faith in multiculturalism - as was the case with my own youthful idealistic belief in Marxism.        
               
               Multiculturalism (the diversity of different cultures living apart) negates a multiethnic society whereby all foreign cultures obey the same rules and laws of the country they take up residency within and become citizens of; even if those laws outlaw some of their own ethnic practices.
                
               The multiculturalists will say that this approach represents bigotry (and a few years ago racism) . But it is not the case because multiculturalism promotes as its lynch-pin, diversity – while inclusiveness within the white indigenous culture of the UK is the multiethnic approach that would have staved off a troublesome multiculturalism; which liberals were seeking to bring about but failed because of their innate political correctness.
               
               
               
               
               
               


Lord Bates pulls the plug on immigration

HOME OFFICE MINISTER Lord Bates is set to become the Left's villain of the week following Jeremy Clarkson last week, and Nigel Farage every week before Clarkson. The noble Lord has the temerity to point out that official figures show that one in four births in the UK were born to none UK citizens. Quoted in the Daily Express Lord Bates said: "In the year ending December 2011 an estimated 7.8 million people were born outside the UK and living in Britain, while 4.9 million were non-UK citizens.
"For the calendar year of 2013, births in the UK to non UK-born mothers accounted for 25 per cent of all live births. That is why we need to reduce immigration."
                Naturally Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband have waded in to criticise Lord Bates for stating the bleeding obvious; which did not need statistics to confirm  a-priori what the white indigenous British public already knew. Milliband and Clegg would have preferred these stats to have been kept under lock and key; at least until after this May's general election. But thankfully Lord Bates was concerned enough about the implications of such statistics on the white indigenous population to release them long before.
                Fifty-five per cent of the UK's population increase over the past decade was caused through immigration; and it will continue to do so as part of the miserable legacy of the previous Labour government who deliberately opened up the country to what Margaret Thatcher once referred to as a country 'being swamped' by immigrants; but she was not prepared for what both Blair and the EU intended.
                By signing up to the free movement of peoples within Europe; the last Labour government opened the floodgates to mass immigration from within and from without Europe; and the Cameron government has done little to turn the tide, despite failed promises of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands before this May's general election.
                We are nearing the tipping point regarding immigration: if it continues, with ever more  immigration, multiplied even further by ever greater birth-rates, then the ordinary and abandoned white indigenous people with their island's 2,000 year history behind them, will be brought to a slow end and replaced; but by what? A mishmash of different cultures fighting among themselves over the pickings of what will be left of the Britain that the white indigenous people created over centuries.
LORD BATES cannot possibly claim ignorance of what he has now announced. My guess is, up until the rise of Ukip, he preferred the safety of silence; as many others have before him (the racist fear effecting any response). Why the liberal establishment hate Ukip and loathes its leader so much, is because he was not afraid to articulate a large rump of white indigenous political opinion regarding the twin evils of the EU and multiculturalism. In doing so he has allowed a debate on immigration that would never have been tolerated by the liberalista that represents our establishment.
                Ukip, and in particular, Nigel Farage, have brought the other parties to heel when it comes to immigration. He was first described as a swivelling-eyed loony by various members of the three main parties who sniffley dismissed him. But Farage fought back. He is very intelligent and articulate; and he expressed many of the indigenous population's fears  about both the EU and immigration, that made millions of them unafraid to vote for his party. After last year's local and European elections; no longer do the other parties put two fingers up to this interloper upon the cloned three party system which the English public, are today being faced with.
                They no longer dismiss his party as racist but now take both Farage and his party seriously. Cameron would not have even offered any kind of referendum on Europe had it not been for Farage, who stole away many Tory voters that Cameron had dismissed as elderly and out of touch with the modern world that he and his modern Conservative Party now reigned over – until, that is, last May's European elections; after which Cameron had second thoughts.
THE FRIGHTENING official statistics regarding birth rates among the foreign gatecrasher's legally allowed entry, and those of the indigenous population, is unnerving. It is unnerving because there is no political party among the pro European triumphret who has the vision to see how the resultant catastrophe will unfold.
                The white indigenous population will, over time, if the trend Lord Bates describes continues; as it will of course continue to do so, because of the unwillingness of  the liberal hegemony to act to prevent it.  The white indigenous population will over decades become a minority within what was once their own nation.
                The genie was let out of the bottle by Blair's stupidity in the first place; but also accompanied by a Blair clone who was elected to the leadership of the 'Conservative' party - David Cameron.
                Cameron, like Blair before him, seems to care little about what is good for the nation's indigenous white population. All they care about is their own place in history and winning as many elections as they can, and to provide ever more column inches praising their efforts.
                Blair allowed into the country millions of east Europeans in order to represent a new foundation of future Labour voters to replace the white indigenous working class that was lost to the party by Margaret Thatcher, who released the union grip on all forms of ancient technology – especially in the printing industry. But also in many other industries such as coal and vehicle manufacturing where union power resided and tormented weak politicians that headed both the Tory and Labour parties; and almost turned the nation into a third world country, had i not been for Margaret Thatcher.
                Blair, or is cronies, eventually sought  to replace the ever diminishing white British working class vote, due to technological innovation and the demise of heavy industry, by looking to Europe for a replacement; and he settled upon eastern Europe – particularly Poland – a nation that shares his wife's Catholic religion and will, through his efforts, will no doubt eventually replace the Anglican Church as the country's established church – but what the hell, Anglicanism is facing its own liberal extinction anyway.
                Lord Bates has served his nation well by his contribution to the immigration debate; but whether his own party will take heed of his contribution is another matter.