IT’S DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN…

…BUT THIS TIME it has the feel of a once successful 1960s pop group reprising an earlier success, by taking to the stage once more for one more payday.

            The unions have been kept from any influence since Margaret Thatcher limited their power in the 1980s through the use of the law. Now, with a debt crises and a need  to take a scythe to public spending, the unions scent an opportunity for what they hope will surpass the chaos of the 1970’s when the streets stank and rats were given free range; and bodies were being left unburied; and, periodically, the lights went out.

            It was a time when the country became known as the sick man of Europe, and all the main political parties were made complicit by their feebleness in keeping the enemy from the gate. The unions at the time were encouraged to walk into Downing Street whenever they felt like it, and, over “beer and sandwiches” would tell the politicians what they must do to avoid the next strike; and the politicians invariably did it – or at least met them more than half-way.

            Why Margaret Thatcher is loathed today by the Left, and in particular the union bosses, is because she turned the country around. Cars were no longer being built where the door could become unhinged at any moment (including the prime minister’s[1]). Privatisation was fostered by the then Conservative government, and because of the much needed union reform, private investors had confidence in buying and investing in all the old nationalised industries that the unions had held sway over and managers had abandoned.

            It was a drab decade where candles, for a while, replaced light bulbs. The country was in a mess of the union’s making, as well as of the politician’s frailty to act. No Labour government dared confront the “union Barons” for fear of losing much needed revenue. No Labour politician who had the ambition to lead his party, dared cross the brothers if he or she wished to realise their ambition – and this, sadly, remains the case today.

            There are no dark satanic mills; there are no children being sent up chimneys or being lowered into the dank abyss of a 19^th century coal mine; there are no Dickensian justifications for having unions. Most, if not all, employers are realising that their workforce are their greatest asset. In the private sector our major companies are appreciating their employees worth; and even where this falls short, the law, in terms of the minimum wage, intervenes.

            It is not perfect but we have moved on from the 1970s; and working conditions in the private sector are far better than they were then. As for the public sector, the terms and conditions of those employed have, if anything, outstripped those of the private sector. If ever the term “job for life” meant anything, it applied to the public sector. While the private sector paid their wages, the public sector made hay with those taxes. Pension schemes that today the average private sector worker could only dream about were contracted to public service employees.

            When the Blair government came to power they poured billions into the NHS, in a final attempt to harbour reform, but only a third went on patient care. The rest was divvied up among the health professionals – consultants, doctors, nurses and every other NHS functionary found themselves financially better off due to the private sector.

            The private sector has been, what in the acting profession is described as a “white angel”. Every day people go to work for companies that, if they help make them a success, will receive a wage increase, as well as seeing the company they work for employ more people, which will increase the tax intake.

            The private sector is the wealth creating sector. The public sector provides the country with, not the wealth from which taxes are taken, but the services needed. These services are determined by politicians either at the national or local level: and in times of hardship for the nation such services must be scrutinised for savings; just as happens within a private company.

FROM THIS NOVEMBER the unions are threatening to reprise the 1970s. Their leaders,  among whom are Dave Prentice, Bob Crow, Mark Serwotka, Steve Gillian; are all vying with each other to succeed where Arthur Scargill failed. They all believe that they now have the opportunity to avenge the unions humiliation suffered under Margaret Thatcher; and once more dominate the political culture of this country.

            Whatever grievances the public sector workers believe they have; their union leaders are only using those grievances as a means to a political end. In other words a repeat of the old Marxist mantra of, the means justifying the end.

            That end is the restoration of union power which no government can afford to accommodate, including a Labour one. The unions, like the CBI, are just another pressure group, reduced to such a status by the Thatcher years.

            This November will be the last hurrah of British trade unionism. We thought that such a nemeses had occurred when the Thatcher era arrived and departed. But resentment within the labour movement can last centuries; and yet the apathy among union members still continue to promote Neanderthals into every vacant office of leadership within every union.

            Come late November, the public sector will have voted for various days of action; which, in effect, means whatever the union leadership has managed to conjure up to disrupted the lives of ordinary people will take place.

            There is a strategy  afoot to cause the maximum disruption to our country. I do not believe that the vast majority of the British people welcomes such a prospect and will make their feelings plain to the union leaders come November.

           

---

  See: Bernard Donoughue Downing Street Diary Vol. 2

JOHN CLEESE IS RIGHT

'London is not the city I knew as a child and it saddens me that many of the unwelcome developments have largely been the result of mass and rapid migration.'

John Cleese

I HAVE NOT SET FOOT in our capital city for over 30 years and so I will have to take John Cleese’s word for it that London is no longer an English city. Although, to be honest, when the “bleedin’ obvious” stares you in the face daily from your television screens, it makes one wonder whether EastEnders is overrepresented by white faces.

            Mr Cleese says that it is impossible to find an Englishman in certain parts of London and I find it wholly believable that this is the case. For London has become a foreign land speaking multiple foreign tongues (estimated at 300). Our nation’s capital has become a Multicultural soup of different cultures; each regarded of equal value by the white liberal politically correct overseers; but abjured by the multiple cultures that compose its make-up. For, quite rightly, no culture, if it is worth the name, can so easily, as Multiculturalism demands, regard itself in any other way than superior to any other. Cultural egalitarianism is like matter forming an alliance with anti-matter – it cannot exist, and should not exist.

            Immigration into this country has caused great harm to the English speaking people. Resentment abounds among the English at the proliferation of foreign tongues and customs that our politicians have allowed to take seed and flourish. Is it really racist to want to keep alive and superior, our homogeneous culture?

            If our culture held sovereignty over all others, then perhaps other cultures would find themselves tolerated. But nothing less than the equality of all cultures including the host culture will suffice for the Multiculturalists.

JOHN CLEESE, like Professor Starkey before him; will no doubt immediately be brought under suspicion. As a Liberal Democrat, Mr Cleese is more vulnerable to his party’s judgement than the maverick professor of history.

            But I hope Mr Cleese stands his ground and embellishes, rather than retreat from his original comments. He is right with his comments made to Australian television about the proliferation of “unfamiliar” cultures that seeks to overpower and replace the English culture he was brought up with; English culture in London is now under the severest of pressure. Even London’s mayor, Boris Johnson has, as a means of being re-elected sought also to embrace multicultural London.

            London is a city apart. A city separated from the rest of the country by its un-prohibited acceptance of other cultures. The rest of the country has indeed many pockets of multicultural communal activity; but such activity is resented in every community in which it manifests itself.

            London, like most Western capital cities, has its various quarters where ethnic minorities congregate and lead completely separate lives from the host culture amongst whom they chose to live … separately: and the host culture has encouraged this separatism as a wholly good thing. The word used is diversity: another, more appropriate term would be multicultural apartheid.

            If we are to have a multi-ethnic arrangement, then there has to be a pecking order, with the host culture dominant. This alpha culture is superior to all others, and if other cultures take up residence they must realise that the host culture must dominate and all others must accept this as a condition of residency. The secular laws of the host culture are superior to any religiously based laws, which must stand to one side in abeyance to the secular law; and if this proves impossible for any particular ethnic group; then they should be invited to leave and seek residency in a country where their culture has a better fit: for not all cultures are compatible and, in a fit of liberal idealism should not pretend that they are.

            London (or, as it is known on the continent, Londonistan) would indeed be unrecognisable, to myself if I were to visit it. For instance, hundreds of thousands of white working class Londoners were packed off to the Essex new towns in the 1960s and 1970s; leaving their council houses and flats to be occupied by the influx of immigrants that started to change so drastically John Cleese’s childhood memories of the great city.

            Since those early influxes, the country has become (to use a Thatcherite expression) “swamped” by immigrants from all corners of the world, and, from 1997 onwards, deliberately so. For it was under Tony Blair that the great Multicultural experiment took off. 

JOHN CLEESE BEMONES the state of his beloved London and risks Lefty vilification for his troubles. But next week a report is to be published proposing that more green field sites should be opened up to development by relaxing the planning laws.

            Rural Britain is quite rightly up in arms; but what has caused this need for more of rural Britain to be covered in concrete and asphalt in the first place?

            According to Migration Watch; by the middle of this century this country’s populous will increase to nearly 70 million people due mainly to both the influx of further immigrants and the birth rate among immigrants. The birth rate among the indigenous culture, however, is set to fall. Indeed the yearly rate of abortions carried out among women has reached 250,000. The vast majority of which comprise white British females who have, in the majority of cases, used the procedure as another form of birth control or life style choice. For I cannot believe that 250,000 women every year  suffer dark nights of the soul before aborting a human life. If so our psychiatric nurses, doctors and specialists would, in terms of their numbers, run into countless hundreds of thousands - which of course they do not.

            The mess this country is in today is due to “progressive” politicians at every level of social and economic policy. So strong became their grip with the election of Tony Blair, and the further electoral success that lay in wait; that the Conservative Party under David Cameron sought to realign his once great party (the party of history and tradition) behind the New Labour phenomenon and seek to imitate the Blair vacuity; which, it seems, has been Cameron’s greatest accomplishment. Or was it? For Coalition government suggests a failure of Cameron strategy.

IMMIGRATION WILL, in the future, occupy the concerns of the voter…even the ethnic voter. The sheer weight of numbers allowed onto our shores will cause great damage to this island nation and cause resentment within the indigenous culture. It has gone far beyond expressions of racism: such words have lost their ability to scar or scare the accused. It no longer matters because events have become so frustrating for the indigenous culture that such name calling is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant, because, in a Multicultural society, racism’s boundaries go well beyond the purely white and black set-up. For racism is not only a white man’s  ailment, but also an Indians, West Indians, Pakistanis, and black Africans.

            White Britain does not hold a monopoly of racist language, but it is preferred to acknowledging the racism that exists between all cultures. For humanity share, if nothing else, the same nature and with it the same prejudices against cultures other than their own. Which is why Multiculturalism cannot and should not work.

            For the Multiculturalists do not understand that all cultures claim superiority over all others. A nation’s culture is the hall-mark of its nationhood and civilisation; and is deeply personal to the member. To reduce British culture, as the Multiculturalists seek to do in this country, to a mere equality between it and all other cultures, is both treasonable and will lead sooner or later to social conflict.

            London, I believe, is becoming alienated from the rest of the nation. The title “Londonistan” has a serious point to it. The name was given us by the French after home grown terrorist, educated by imams in various mosques such as Finsbury Park, took themselves off to Pakistan for military training before being sent to kill British soldiers in Afghanistan: while at the same time our rulers in Westminster sat back and deliberately allowed it to happen, for fear, if you please, of antagonising the two million Muslims living among us.

            John Cleese was brave to say the things he did and should continue in the same vein. Multiculturalism has been, wisely, rejected by both David Cameron and Angela Merkle as a divisive force that creates apartheid between cultures instead if integration into the host culture.

            The mass migration deliberately orchestrated by the last government as policy, has caused much resentment among the indigenous people; and only when liberals like John Cleese speak up and point to the elephant in the room, will immigration become, what it has failed to become in the past – a proper subject for debate.

           

           

            

JOHN GALLIANO, A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF A PSEUDO OSCAR WILDE

WHEN WE GET DRUNK, we tend to say and do things that would either embarrass us when sober, or conflict with the laws of the land. But usually, when we spew out the vilest of racist slurs in public, the judge would not make allowances for our condition. For when it comes to prejudice of one form or another, it is quite rightly assumed by the court that the alcohol only acts as a catalyst for the racist/homophobe etcetera, to loosen his or her tongue and express their true feelings; feelings that would normally be kept under lock and key in the subconscious.

            Celebrities have to be particularly careful about expressing their opinions publicly when inebriated. Mel Gibson began the anti-Semite trend that the 50 year old British fashion designer John Galliano continued. Galliano was videoed in a bar telling two Italian women that their forbears  should have been “gassed” and that he loved Hitler. He went on trial in June, when he attacked 35 year-old museum curator, Geraldine Bloch on 24^th  February in La Perle, a Parisian bar. Among the tributes he paid Ms Bloch was that she had a “dirty Jewish face”. Her partner Philippe Virgitti, 42, was referred to by Galliano as a “dirty Asian shit” and an “illegal immigrant”.

            Fatiha Oumeddour, 47 also suffered from Galliano’s drunken outburst in the same bar last October. She was called a “fucking ugly Jewish bastard”.

            It was not the drugs or alcohol that spoke these words, but they were the sincerely held racist beliefs of the imbiber, whose defences were undermined by the drugs and alcohol he consumed.

NATURALLY FOR SUCH a serious outburst, criminal proceedings were inevitable. The judge who gave the pitiful sentence was Judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud, who justified the £2.60 fine on the grounds that Galliano had no previous convictions. Perhaps Judge Sauteraud shopped at Dior and had a particular likening for the degenerate Gallianos’ bizarre sense of what accounted for suitable clothing for humans.

            I have heard the argument that had Galliano used “nigger” instead of “Jew”, judge Sauteraud would have not dared to deliver such a judgement. I believe there is truth in this argument that being black is the gold standard for being a racist, and anything that falls short of that criterion, like anti-Semitism, will meet with little resistance within European courts.

            This pampered popping- jay is untouchable. He holds court in La Perle, and other Parisian bars, where, particularly women, are drawn into his orbit to later tell their friends of the experience, and rub their noses in their newly found familiarity with the great Galliano.

            Perhaps those he insulted hoped to brag about their encounter with him, had he not given vent to his repugnant infantilism. Galliano, whatever is merit as a fashion designer, was no great wit. He held court knowing that his every word would be listened to as if,  like his fashion designs, they represented originality.

            Not being an Oscar Wilde, but a bigot wrapped in courtier clothing, Galliano spoke his true feelings. He is an anti-Semite, just as Mel Gibson, who also sought to blame alcohol  for his rants, is also an anti-Semite.

            Such prejudices go well beyond various chemical substances. They exist and are real, and will not go away because they are truly believed in by those celebrities who have the misfortune of  giving public vent to them.

            Both Mel Gibson and John Galliano may put themselves into rehab over their remarks, believing that all the various forms of substance abuse they have sought to find the measure of, have been solely responsible for engraving racism into their consciousness: but the finest of wines or the purest of chemical substances, do not turn a person into a racist.

GALLIANO TOLD THE COURT that, “They’re not views I hold or believe in. In the video I see someone who needs help.” I would respect this man far more than I do, if he would stand by his remarks, rather than pretend they were spoken by someone else, as he seems to be suggesting. Galliano’s priority it seems, is to salvage his reputation. His profitable association with Dior has been cancelled and he now awaits the judgement of  the wives and mistresses of the rich and famous. Will they be as kind as judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud has been. Only time will tell.

            If John Galliano survives this escapade, it will be because a European judge sat in judgement of his racist comments and trivialised them with her verdict. In which case the female bourgeoisie of Europe can go on with their infatuation with the Galliano product and continue to pay court to this pitiful excuse for a human being.

            Galliano is an anti-Semite who woke up congratulating himself after a drunken night spent in a Parisian bar abusing his “guests”. It was not until the video recordings of his evening’s  shenanigans were exposed, that he courted victimhood in the form of  alcohol and chemical abuse.

            John Galliano is but one representative of the kind of decadence that the West has fallen victim to. A decadence that has often been accompanied by, in the past, the ending of empire.

            

SIR STUART BELL – BED BLOCKER EXTRAORDINAIRE

SIR STUART BELL’S MIDDLESBROUGH CONSTITUENCY is a prime example of a safe seat where Labour voters would vote for a chimpanzee to represent them if it wore a red rosette. Therefore they have little to complain about if their ennobled representative abuses the dispensation  given him by dyed in the wool Labour voters who’s votes are nothing more than barnacles, permanently attached to the Labour hull.

            As for Sir Stuart, he can afford to ride out any controversy, knowing that his position can only be placed under threat by his constituency party or Labour’s NEC. Both these options seem unlikely, unless the Labour voters of Middlesbrough decide at the ballot box to end their MP’s 28 year reign.

            He is being criticised for having never held a constituency surgery in 14 years - but is, however, available by phone: although his local newspaper, the Middlesbrough Gazette had called his office 100 times over the summer without reply. At least after claiming £85,000 in “staff costs” according to the Daily Mail – part of which, £35,000, goes every year to his wife who manages his “office”, you would have thought an exchange of a few pleasantries with the editor of his local newspaper would be the least he might be prepared to do.

            Sir Stuart Bell received his knighthood in 2004, followed in 2006 by being appointed a Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur; France’s highest honour; which was presented to him by President Chirac - who is now, by the way, under investigation for corruption while mayor of Paris.

            Sir Stuart also seemed to play the part of parliamentary shop steward during the expenses scandal that degraded even further the popular reputation of our political class. He did much to diminish his own reputation by appearing to blame the parliamentary overseers for the many noses dipped deeply in the trough.

            For his reputation was formidable. For instance, after being promoted by Neil Kinnock in 1984 to the frontbench as a spokesman on Northern Ireland; he resigned after the Cleveland child abuse scandal broke. For the next two years he took on Cleveland’s social services in support of Cleveland’s children; and this, if nothing else, earned him is knighthood. He thus became one of the few to receive the honour who can proudly boast that it was well merited; and not a political reward for services rendered.

BUT WHAT THE CASE OF Sir Stuart Bell, and now, it seems, the former MP for Luton South, Margaret Moran proves; is that the “safe seat” is the modern equivalence of the old Rotten Boroughs. For whoever stands in such seats need never fear the electorate, but need only to pay close attention and fawn over, like Dickens’s Uriah Heap, their constituency parties; who will remain loyal long after the cell doors have been slammed shut.

            There should be no safe constituency in this country. Each and every member of our parliament should feel insecure. They should not  be allowed to countenance the good life at the tax payer’s expense; they should not feel that they are in an invulnerable position freed from the electorate’s will. If the electorate will not change their ways, then, demographically speaking, the ways must be changed for them if they wish to see their confidence in our political class restored. It is no use complaining about the likes of Sir Stuart Bell or Margaret Moran, if you are not prepared, voluntarily, as voters, to put an end to it yourselves.

            We are still, in many areas, a class bound country with class loyalties that will not be shaken by any one individual’s behaviour, providing that individual represents the party they have, for generations, given their loyalty too.

            It is the people of Middlesbrough that need to change. Their loyalty is to a party and not an individual. As long as Labour returns an MP for Middlesbrough, it matters little about character or criminality short of murder; and it matters little to the party unless they detect a backlash among loyal Labour voters in Middlesbrough. Then, and only then, will the party they have been pre-programmed genetically to support change its ways.

            A safe-seat can become an excuse for laziness, as it appears Sir Stuart Bell’s has become. In such circumstance it neither befits the current representative, or his party. He has become sluggish and languorous, about his duties to the people of Middlesbrough.  

            To have never consulted with his constituents in 14 years, can have only been accomplished by a politician who knows that he sits, democratically at least, almost immovable from his position as an MP: an MP who knows that when he is eventually driven out of office; it will be to the House of Lords, and given further opportunity for making money.

TODAY OUR POLITICIANS, AS A CLASS, are venal and third rate. They seek out rewards for their families quite legitimately under Green Book rules, and have little or no serious background for being politicians.

            Their minds are third rate; they have little knowledge of this island’s history other than what they were taught at school; and as far as the Left is concerned, the ordure of every page presented to them to study naturally finds only the utmost contempt.

            There must be an overhaul of this country’s voting demographics. In America party allegiances are not so profound as they are in this country. If a political leader in America, fighting for his party’s acceptance as a presidential candidate cannot garner enough support, he or she is quickly disposed of; because power is the first need of any party.

            Sir Stuart Bell is not alone within the political parties. All of the parties have safe-constituencies which face little opposition at election times. The House of Commons needs reform. It needs a reduction in the numbers of its members by a third, and as a result, a redrawing of constituency boundaries.

            Sir Stuart Bell will be offered the Lords by Ed Milliband before the next election, and the offer will be gratefully accepted by this latter day Rip Van Winkle.

            There he will sit out his remaining days, dining well; until he passes away on the red benches, and is carried finally from the mother of all parliaments by several bewigged parliamentary officers wearing black tights. At last the noble Lord will be free from his persecutors and the spite of an ungrateful nation.