Hague of the FO

IT MUST HAVE SEEMED LIKE a masterful ploy hatched by the UK‘s Foreign Office in conjunction with France’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. The idea was to put pressure on the Assad regime by threatening to arm the Syrian opposition; in this way they hoped to encourage Syria into peace talks next month. So William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, and his French counterpart took themselves off to Brussels to persuade our European allies not to continue with the arms embargo against Syria when it comes up for renewal.

            

            They got their way and now the British and the French have a free hand (although they had little or no support from other European countries). Hague was restrained when he appeared before the cameras after the fateful decision. The so-called ‘Rolls Royce’ of the civil service had once more lived up to the soubriquet. The Foreign Office must have felt quite smug, as they listened to their political master at the press conference following the meeting.

            

            Meanwhile, the Russians were viewing such developments with hostility. The Russians have a vital seaport in Syria overlooking the Mediterranean, in which it parks its navy; and as such looks dimly upon any threat that may result in its loss…which of course is what the defeat of Assad would mean.

            

            Now Putin has allowed batteries of long range S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to be sent to Assad as a deterrent to any no-fly zone the West may try imposing on Syria. The trouble is, that the entrance of the S-300 missiles into the Syrian conflict, now poses a threat to Israel, who have been carrying out bombing raids over Syria to try and stop missiles from Iran getting into the hands of Hezbollah.

           

             Benjamin Netanyahu is not a man to be trifled with; his hero is Winston Churchill and he means what he says; and he says that if these missiles land on Syrian soil, Israel will act. Israel would be right in doing so, because the threat from Iranian missiles in the hands of Hezbollah is of a clear and present danger to the state of Israel.

BRITAIN AND FRANCE dropped a stone into the pond, in the hope of bluffing Assad into peace talks. Now the ripples have advanced beyond any limit expected by Britain and France. Israel now stands ready to be drawn deeper into the conflict if the S-300 missiles find themselves being unloaded at a Syrian port.

           

             The UK has (like France) been eager to help the Syrian opposition. They could and should have replicated their intervention in Libya, as the Syrian opposition hoped they would do, but at the very beginning of this conflict. But they held back and allowed a mish-mash of jihadists from all over the Muslim world to intervene on either side’s behalf. Now we have a complete mess, and our government is considering arming the very people who would have been cheering the brutal murder of drummer Lee Rigby last Wednesday.

            

              It is utter madness to provide arms for these people, and the House of Common’s deserve to be heard before the government foolishly embarks upon such a misadventure. We are in the middle of cutbacks, especially to our nation’s defence; yet we blather on as if we still ruled half the world. It embarrasses me to hear our leaders behaving in such a manner. Leave Syria to its own devices. We could have helped early on in the crises, but we failed to do so because, as we were told by our politicians ‘Syria is not like Libya’, well it once was, but we passed along.

THE BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE cannot help itself when it comes to the Arab world; its Arab sympathies have become renowned particularly, one might fancifully assume, since T. E. Lawrence romanticised the Arab in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom. As such, the Foreign Office has always been seen and described as Arabist to this very day - thus meeting scepticism from Israel, who distrusts the British Foreign Office.

            

             If those batteries of S-300 missiles turn up in Syria, the Foreign Office will be partly to blame having            played its silly game of poker. There will be no point in trying to persuade Israel not destroy the S-300s if they turn up overlooking the Golan Heights no matter how much such an action would further inflame the region. The Foreign office misplayed its hand and should now keep its own council

             

Liberals are ill-equipped by their feeble consciences

IF EVER THERE WERE AN example of liberal frailty and feebleness it is the announcement that President Obama is seeking to limit the effectiveness of the one weapon in the West’s armoury that has proved successful in hunting down Taliban terrorists and their leaders. After giving a robust defence of the use of drones, he then inserts caveats; such as we must be almost certain to the tenth degree that there are no civilians in the target area before the decision is made to kill a Taliban terrorist. A terrorist (let us remember) who will be left to continue on with his hate filled life; and will causes the death of, who knows how many American soldiers. How would Obama explain this to the families of American servicemen (themselves also civilians)? Especially as his armed forces had the chance to, but never killed the Taliban in strict conformity with his caveat.

            

            President Obama’s predecessor was loathed and hated, and considered a Neanderthal by America’s liberals. Now we have a truly liberal president whose gift with rhetoric gave him the Whitehouse. But rhetoric is merely a political device used to arouse or becalm. It buys you into the Whitehouse or Number 10, and does little afterwards to keep you there. What you do practically secures you another term.

            

           Either we use all of our military power short of the nuclear option to defeat our enemies or we buckle under as our political leaders in the West seem to be doing. If our enemies try to defeat us by using our perceived weakness, as they do – and if we comply; then good luck to them, for then we get what we truly deserve.

IF OUR ENEMIES, as they did in the Second World War, brought total war to Europe; then Churchill took the nation’s gloves off and reciprocated in kind to save the nation. This he proceeded to do with the thousand bomber raids over Germany.

Today we have politicians who demand that one arm be tied behind our soldiers backs. In the Second World War the Americans did what they had to do in Europe, not only to destroy Nazism, but bring as many of their young soldiers back alive…whether the Nazis held Frenchmen and women as shields mattered little – but it probably never happened because the Nazis new that it would not work as far as the allies were concerned. The price of victory is great indeed. But today our enfeebled political leaders will succumb to any Islamic threat with the most tentative of responses that they feel their people are prepared to accept. Even if it is dressed up in the Churchillian rhetoric by our politicians

The drones are the one weapon that does not cost the lives of our military, and yet, president Obama seeks to tie one hand behind the backs of those who navigate the drones, by limiting their targeting to a level that may not endanger civilians among which Islamists cower in the belief that the likes of Obama, Cameron, and any Western leader are not prepared to destroy.

HOW FAR HAS THE West diminished itself since it used every effort available to it to destroy the Japanese and Nazis? There were no human rights organisation to intervene, either on the German or Japanese behalf, as there are today regarding the Islamists. It took five years of total war to defeat the both Japanese and Nazi hegemony. But our modern politicians are made of less sterner stuff than those that confronted Germany and Japan.

            

            Today, unlike 1939-1945, the West has retreated into the human rights agenda. Human rights now dictate the schema. The Human Rights lobby today would regard Churchill’s response to Hitler’s concept of Total War, as much a war crime as anything Hitler did.

            

           The West has come up with a weapon that save our soldier’s lives (something their families would be grateful for at least). Yet we now have stop the drone groups setting up in America and the UK, and the frightening thing is that president Obama seems to be listening to this querulous minority. They are small in number, but very noisy; and as we know, those who shout the loudest are listened to politicians.

           

          The drones are a game changer that in Afghanistan have proven more effective at destroying the enemy’s leadership than the presence of 60,000 NATO troops. So why hold back? We should be building more drones and advancing on the technology that creates them. They may be the future of warfare and should have no restrictions on their use that would leave an enemy free to kill.

           

           

           

           

Tally Ho! The hunt is on

THERE IS AN activity currently under way in this country which is reinventing the 17^th century witch-hunts in a 21^st century setting. Dozens, if not hundreds of mainly celebrities have been  hauled in for questioning by the police. The offences they are being questioned about concern all kinds of  sexual abuse toward women and children.

 Ever since the Savile creature was exposed as a pernicious  recidivist sexual abuser of women and children over several decades, society has allowed the police to behave as they wish considering the nature of the crimes they are investigating. I was one of those who believed that the police should be given a free hand, and, providing their behaviour remained within the compass of the law, I cared little about dawn raids, even if a knock on the door at a respectable time of day would have sufficed.

Believing that the police had good reason to question such people, I cared little about the timing of their custody; especially as such celebrities as Gary Glitter and Simon King, had already been sent to trial and had been found guilty. So when Savile appeared on the radar as the worst example of such a disgraceful and dehumanising practice; then enough was enough, and I, like millions of other citizens felt that the police should be given a long leash in their attempt to round up what now appears to be, in many cases, practices that occurred over 40 years ago - the nature of which we remain ignorant of.

Child abuse is, among the many sins that human beings are on  a daily basis guilty of, perhaps the worst; and as such, a blind eye is turned when an accused is brought in for questioning under such circumstances.

THE LATEST INVITATION by the police has been extended to Rolf Harris. An invitation that will have effectively ruined his career[1] whether proven guilty or innocent; and it is about time that this covert behaviour by the police should face some kind of challenge.

           

            Enter Rod Liddle writing in the Spectator. He, through his wit, has set the ball rolling. It is unsettling to see what, so far, appears to be celebrities from the 1970s being the most lucrative prey of the modern Inquisitor.

           

            Rolf Harris is being questioned by the police in connection with sexual abuse, the details of which we are not privileged to know. So we speculate  based upon the  template of Jimmy Savile, to come to all sorts of conclusions regarding Rolf Harris.

            

           This cannot be fare to the individual and should not be tolerated; but the politicians are on the side of those who care little (including by the way our liberals), when questions of sexual abuse are being laid against an individual. They will stay quiet for fear of a lost deposit if they stand out against any questionable behaviour by the police.

BECAUSE THOSE TARGETED have, until now, been celebrities from the 1970s; this decade is being treated as a particularly valuable ‘oil rich’ period, so to speak, for the police. The police have received complaints from those who they say have been abused by this or that celebrity during the 1960s and 1970s, and they are pursuing such complaints with the full sympathy of the public.

            

             What we seem to have is a collision between the age of ‘free love’ and political correctness. From the 1960s to the mid 1970s,  sexual behaviour, which today would be regarded as abuse, was seen as part of sexual liberation. This of course did not include the sexual abuse of children. But it did include behaviour that fell well short of rape, which rightly today is regarded as criminal abuse. At the time, if a man made an unwelcome  touch of upon women’s thigh over dinner, then a slap in the face would prove a sufficient deterrent. But today it would be regarded as an assault and therefore would result in the arrest of the slapper followed by a term in prison before being put on the Sexual Offenders Register

            

             If Rolf Harris is proven guilty of rape, or serious sexual abuse short of this, then he must accept the consequences. But anything less should be disregarded and put down to the times in which this 84 –year old lived.

            So far Rolf Harris’s arrest has not changed my view of the man and will not until, or if, he has his day in court and is found guilty of a serious sexual offence against a women or child. It shocked me when I read he had been questioned by the police. Harris’s name should not have been published until he was charged with a crime. Someone leaked details to the media and that someone had to come from within the police – if so, Leveson would have taken a dim view of such behaviour.

           

            There seems, in certain quarters, an eager anticipation of the next celebrity to be hauled in to be charged with what may turn out to be some modern perversion that 40 years ago was, rightly or wrongly, tolerated. You would have had to have lived through the 1960s and early 70s to understand the times. Political correctness was an eternity away, and as different as the reign of Charles II was from that of Queen Victoria. Times change, and with them how we treat each other – to quote from The Go Between; ‘The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there’.          

                       

           

---

[1] It has begun before Rolf is even charged with a crime. Channel Five has pulled its transmission of ‘Olive the Ostrich’. We now hear that Mr Harris is suicidal.

A vote for the ‘clowns’

“I look forward to the day when the Westminster parliament is just a council chamber in Europe”

Kenneth Clarke 1996

TOMORROW ARE THE local elections and I am hoping that Ukip sends a shiver down the spines of all of the main party’s MPs.  One of whom made his presence felt on Sunday, a senior, but failed Tory politician hurled insults at an opponent. In doing so he had no reasoned argument to offer him.

But not only did Ken Clarke (and earlier David Cameron) hurl their abuse, but argued that those they infer are ‘clowns’ and ‘racist’ should return to the Tory fold on Thursday – presumably to a party of the genuine article.

            

           Tomorrow gives an opportunity to upset the social democratic consensus that is represented by the three main parties. Every person who calls his or herself a Tory should vote Ukip. Everyone  like myself, who had been a life-long Labour supporter - should also vote Ukip.

            

           However well Ukip does tomorrow, they will take votes from both the Tory and Labour parties, despite the commentators insistence that their support will come solely from disgruntled Tories. Ukip lays emphasis on the two most important issues after the economy that voters are most concerned about  - issues which the three main parties are afraid to tackle in any meaningful way.

           

           First of all immigration. The politicians know how the indigenous British feel about this issue through their weekend surgeries, as well as through canvassing during by-elections, local elections, and general elections. But, as die-hard multiculturalists, all that has been forthcoming from their mouths is the speech writers rhetoric meant only to  appease and do little else - it is like garnishing an empty plate.

            

           Secondly, we have the wretched European Union on our backs, and, like multiculturalism, encouraged by all the main parties - but using the same garnish. This is why Ukip is being taken seriously. Because none of the main parties take the British people seriously. They are fobbed off by rhetoric, and cheated when such rhetoric leads to nothing. Then cynicism intercedes and parties like Ukip are created to serve a real purpose.

ELECTION’S PROVIDE the law abiding with the one opportunity to protest their grievances against an ill-judged rule by politicians acting against the instincts of the indigenous population. I use the phrase ‘indigenous population’, because, as with the Native Americans and the Australian aborigines, the white British are becoming aboriginal in all but name.

            

            May Ukip be around for a long while, for they have a service to provide the indigenous British. Ukip are the keepers of tradition, nationhood, independence and sovereignty – in fact,  Toryism. For the likes of Ken Clarke to still consider himself  in such a mould is almost ghoulish. After all, Ken pinned his colours to the mast 17 years ago when he wrote in the International Currency Review Vol 23 No 4; ‘I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe’.

           

            I appeal to my many thousands of readers[1] to vote Ukip. The current political class are in social democratic harmony; although they still struggle to find real grievances with each other in order to gain power.

             At 63, and as a lifelong Labour voter, I voted in 2010 for what I hoped would be a Tory government (can you believe it at 60?). I believed Cameron’s salesmanship and believed we would be granted a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, despite the small print of his promise.

            

             After which I learnt to believe that the three main parties were, when it came to Europe, all in cahoots with each other, each feeding their sceptics with whatever rhetorical dross was needed to keep them on board within all parties; but to a greater extent within the Conservative Party.

 Today within the parliamentary Conservative party, such sceptics, many of whom still hold onto the tenancy that is a brilliant mind, but nevertheless sit on the government backbenches. Ukip will amount to nothing unless they can attract to their cause those backbench Conservative Eurosceptics. But even if they do not grab the European hook they are being enticed with; they will not prevent this nation of ours becoming part of Ken Clarke’s wet dream.

UKIP MUST teach the social democratic class a lesson. They can only do this if good Tories  and Labour patriots rally to the cause of, first of all, returning this nation to a two or three party state whose differences were no longer perfunctory  because it little mattered who, apart from class tradition people voted for.

            

             There is a real chance for the people of this country (who are small ‘c’ conservatives by nature) to change the cosy relationship between the main parties. If Labour voters copied the many  Tory ones and voted Ukip, then the two issues that matter most to them as much as they do Tory voters – then it could bring rich rewards. No longer trusting their political rhetoric or promises, the people would make the main parties change, and once more become three distinct and different entities.

           

            So I hope that come tomorrow night and the early hours of Friday morning all the politicians will be running scared.

           

           

           

           

---

[1] A joke of cause

Let history judge

If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by “Brussels”, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure,” Boris Johnson

THE LONDON MAYOR, Boris Johnson, has entered the great referendum debate. His intervention comes after the Deference Secretary Richard Hammond and the Education Secretary Michael Gove, were interviewed over the weekend, and each said they would vote no in an in/out referendum.

            

            Leaving the EU is no longer viewed as an eccentric position to hold. Lord Lawson, Michael Portillo, and even the ex-Labour chancellor Dennis Healy, have all joined an increasingly long list of  intellectual heavy-weights declaring themselves in favour of leaving.

             

           Now Boris Johnson has given a warning that leaving the EU would not solve all our economic problems which he believes are partly caused by sloth, low skills, short-termism, inadequate management, and what he refers to as a “culture of easy gratification”; which leaves me somewhat intrigued: is he is suggesting that great British workforce is making too many stopovers  at various  “tart’s boudoirs” on their way home from a slothful day spent at the office, or on the factory floor?

            

            But Boris is right about the British economy and believing the EU to be responsible. I do not believe Brussels should have any  kind of responsibility for the mess this country is in…if we had become part of the euro zone, it would have been a different matter. In fact,  the only creditable policy that Gordon Brown authored was to keep this country as far away from Europe’s monopoly money.

            

            No, why I want out of the EU has to do with the survival of our nation state, which implies our ability to make our own laws and raise our own taxes, and be in control of our boarders regarding European migration … and to keep our armed forces in the service of the national interest instead of the European.

I have no argument with Boris about the economy. But as a Tory, surely he still believes in a free nation  built upon liberty and independence? Many of his colleagues however, do not. They regard the nation state as a Victorian antique suitable only for history’s scrap heap. These Europhiles, or as I see them, Social Democrats in Tory clothing, would send their grandmothers to the guillotine in order to keep the thousand year European Reich alive.

One of Boris’ more free speaking Tory colleagues, Kenneth Clarke, has made the Europhile position clear. As early as 1996  (when eurosceptics were seen as nutters) Clarke was putting pen to paper in the International Currency Review; where he wrote; “I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe”

EVEN TO THIS DAY, from the prime minister down, there are still dozens on the Tory back-benchers who will share Clarke’s 1996 sentiments; as no doubt, Clarke himself still believes… for has he not referred to Ukip as clowns?

            

            The Tory party has travelled such a distance in their long history from the 18^th century; only to now reject the nation state; the bulwark of a culture and its history; where, over the centuries,  millions have died in order to preserve it.

            

            What Boris needs to understand is that our economy has been made less important by the EU, and not by those of us who wish to remain a solvent nation. I would say this to Boris. Would the sloth he refers to, be eviscerated by us giving up our sovereignty? I think not, because, with the exception of Germany, the whole of Europe is tilted toward the welfarism of the state sector. If he thinks this country is in an economic quandary (be it of our own making), then think of what a social Europe would herald. Look at France where enterprise is restricted by over regulation (even before Hollande). Boris knows (for he laid the red carpet) what harm social democracy can do. He invited to London France’s brightest and best to enjoy what compared to Hollande’s France, would be a tax haven.

            

             Throughout the whole of Europe, the balance between the private and public sector is reaching either equilibrium, or the state sector is advancing further: and if it had not been for the euro crisis, northern Europe would still be paying for millions of state sector workers in southern European countries who have little to contribute economically to the rest of Europe.

            

             As we now know, the so-called PIGS nations should never have been entertained as members of a single currency. Boris Johnson knows this, and he knows that if this country had ever entered such an arrangement, we would have been an addition to the PIGS acronym.

EUROPEAN FEDERALISM IS JUST AS IMPORTANT as the state of the British economy. Those who suggest differently are Europhiles who wish to put the issue of  a referendum once more, as they have always done, onto the back burner. Those deploying the in/out referendum as an inconsequential argument, such as Boris, either lacks Tory values or misunderstands them. If the former, then let him declare himself a Social Democrat. If the latter, let him declare himself “ignorant” of anything that stands in the way of his own political advancement.

            

             Europe is the most important concern of the British people accompanied as it is by the question of immigration, even if it is not reflected in the polls. I cannot believe that the white British people wish to see their nation subsumed into the Borg Collective, where their votes will be rendered meaningless; and their one time national parliament will be reduced to the status of a mere county council within a Greater Europe.

            

            I cannot accept that this would be what the white British people would want. If it is, then let it be spelled out in a referendum. After which, whether it goes against the idea of a nation state or not; the people of Britain will accept it; and leave the consequences for history to judge.

           

           

           

           

Let history judge

“If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by “Brussels”, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure,” Boris Johnson

THE LONDON MAYOR, Boris Johnson, has entered the great referendum debate. His intervention comes after the Deference Secretary Richard Hammond and the Education Secretary Michael Gove, were interviewed over the weekend, and each said they would vote no in an in/out referendum.

            

             Leaving the EU is no longer viewed as an eccentric position to hold. Lord Lawson, Michael Portillo, and even the ex-Labour chancellor Dennis Healey, have all joined an increasingly long list of  intellectual heavy-weights declaring themselves in favour of leaving.

             

            Now Boris Johnson has given a warning that leaving the EU would not solve all our economic problems which he believes are partly caused by sloth, low skills, short-termism, inadequate management, and what he refers to as a “culture of easy gratification”; which leaves me somewhat intrigued: is he  suggesting that great British workforce is making too many stopovers at various “tart’s boudoirs” on their way home from a slothful day spent at the office, or on the factory floor?

            

           But Boris is right about the British economy and believing the EU to be responsible. I do not believe Brussels should have any  kind of responsibility for the mess this country is in…if we had become part of the euro zone, it would have been a different matter. In fact, the only creditable policy that Gordon Brown authored was to keep this country as far away from Europe’s monopoly money.

            

           No, why I want out of the EU has to do with the survival of our nation state, which implies our ability to make our own laws and raise our own taxes, and be in control of our boarders regarding European migration … and to keep our armed forces in the service of the national interest instead of the European.

I have no argument with Boris about the economy. But as a Tory, surely he still believes in a free nation built upon liberty and independence? Many of his colleagues however, do not. They regard the nation state as a Victorian antique suitable only for history’s scrap heap. These Europhiles, or as I see them, Social Democrats in Tory clothing, would send their grandmothers to the guillotine in order to keep the thousand year European Reich alive.

One of Boris’ more free speaking Tory colleagues, Kenneth Clarke, has made the Europhiles' position clear. As early as 1996  (when Euro-sceptics were seen as nutters) Clarke was putting pen to paper in the International Currency Review; where he wrote; “I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe”

EVEN TO THIS DAY, from the prime minister down, there are still dozens on the Tory back-bencher's who will share Clarke’s 1996 sentiments; as no doubt, Clarke himself still believes… for has he not referred to Ukip as clowns?

            

             The Tory party has travelled such a distance in their long history from the 18^th century; only to now undermine our nation state; the bulwark of which is a unique culture and its history; where, over the centuries,  millions have died in order for its continuity.

            

             What Boris needs to understand is that our economy has been made less important by the EU, and not by those of us who wish to remain a solvent nation. I would say this to Boris. Would the sloth he refers to be eviscerated by us giving up our sovereignty? I think not, because, with the exception of Germany, the whole of Europe is tilted toward the welfarism of the state sector. If he thinks this country is in an economic quandary (be it of our own making), then think of what a social Europe would herald. Look at France where enterprise is restricted by over regulation (even before Hollande). Boris knows (for he laid the red carpet) what harm social democracy can do. He invited to London France’s brightest and best to enjoy what compared to Hollande’s France, would be a tax haven.

            

             Throughout the whole of Europe, the balance between the private and public sector is reaching either equilibrium, or the state sector is advancing further: and if it had not been for the euro crisis, northern Europe would still be paying for millions of state sector workers in southern European countries who have little to contribute economically to the rest of Europe.

            As we now know, the so-called PIGS nations should never have been entertained as members of a single currency. Boris Johnson knows this, and he knows that if this country had ever entered such an arrangement, we would have been an addition to the PIGS acronym.

EUROPEAN FEDERALISM IS JUST AS IMPORTANT as the state of the British economy. Those who suggest differently are Europhiles who wish to put the issue of  a referendum once more, as they have always done, onto the back burner. Those deploying the in/out referendum as an inconsequential argument, such as Boris, either lacks Tory values or misunderstands them. If the former, then let him declare himself a Social Democrat. If the latter, let him declare himself “ignorant” of anything that stands in the way of his own political advancement.

            

             Europe is the most important concern of the British people accompanied as it is by the question of immigration, even if it is not reflected in the polls. I cannot believe that the white British people wish to see their nation subsumed into the Borg Collective, where their votes will be rendered meaningless; and their one time national parliament will be reduced to the status of a mere county council within a Greater Europe.

           

           I cannot accept that this would be what the white British people would want. If it is, then let it be spelled out in a referendum. After which, whether it goes against the idea of a nation state or not; the people of Britain will accept it; and leave the consequences for  history to judge.

           

           

           

           

The truth will out

NOW COMES TRULY astounding news on immigration. The former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson, has admitted that Labour socially engineered mass migration into this country. Addressing a pro-Blairite rally, he admitted, ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’ This is a truly  shocking admission; one which confirms my belief, but one which we never expected to be confirmed by such a major figure within the Labour Party.

            

             Indeed the admission supports the former speechwriter to the last Labour government, Andrew Neather, who exposed such behaviour months ago. He wrote that the motive was as much political as part of a package of social engineering. He suggests that the policy was meant to undermine the Tories by ‘[rubbing] the Right’s noses in diversity’. Neather said at the time that Labour had, ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.

            

             Now Machiavelli himself has spoken out and the game is finally up. The Labour Party’s favourite taunt against the Tories, and one which gave us ‘compassionate Conservatism’ under Cameron, was the race card. Which has been the Tories soft underbelly ever since Enoch Powell warned us of what he called communalism would do to the country he loved.

            

             Racism is an ugly word, but one which is made even uglier when it is used to silence genuine concerns over immigration; and this is what the Labour Party set out to do. They stifled all debate on immigration…so the likes of Blair, Brown, and Mandelson, opened the floodgates; and communities all over the country have been flooded out ever since.

BLAIR’S SOCIALLY ENGINEERED migration has all the refinement and subtly of Pol Pots’ Year One. It was however,  to become a failure that may prove to have ruined this country. The millions of immigrants (legal as well as illegal) that poured over our boarders to take up jobs that were poorly paid for the indigenous white population to take up was also part of the rational that unleashed the time bomb.

            

             I will give the last government the benefit of the doubt and accept that they considered, not only the upside (embarrassing the Tories), but also thought through the consequences  of allowing such an infusion of millions of immigrants on the social cohesion of the country.

           

             If they did, then the prospect of ‘[rubbing] the Right’s noses in diversity’, appealed to them more than what such an increase in the nation’s population would have on the NHS, education, crime, and housing. Today people in social housing face having one of their rooms let to a stranger or face a cut in their Housing Benefit, if their council owned property is deemed too big for one or two people. This is a consequence of Tony Blair’s cunning plan on immigration.

            

             The NHS is also paying a price. Immigration is making its mark on waiting times and the availability of hospital beds which means a longer wait, in some cases, for surgery. In my district hospital, I noticed on one visit, posters spelling out a simple command in no less than 13 different tongues. On one occasion I sat in my doctor’s surgery listening to incomprehensible voices and not one in my own tongue. While our schools are also burdened by the influx, as well as the welfare state. If Blair had set out deliberately to destroy all Labour’s  historical achievements regarding  their egalitarian impulses,  he could not have done a better job if he had Margaret Thatcher.  Yet the chimps still remain loyal to the red rosette.

UNDER LABOUR the immigrant population soared by 22%. Which meant that during the past two decades the number of foreign born residence have almost doubled from 7% of the total population in 1993, to almost 7 million, or 12% in 2010.

            

             Under the cover of Multiculturalism (which at the time faced little challenge) the Labour Party set to work on writing off the Tories as a political force once and for all. Driven by smugness from Blair and class hatred from Brown, these political alchemists set about creating a different country…one without the Tories.

            

             It now seems that they have had a partial success  by forcing the Conservative Party into their Social Democrat fold…especially on Europe.

            

             As an experiment in social engineering Labour’s policy on immigration has proven costly to the very people they were set up to protect.  Working classes wages are being undercut by European immigrants; yet it is my bet that the red rosette wearing chimpanzees will still vote as their fathers and grandfathers did, and for no other reason.

           

           

The 5,000 Irish heroes

THE LEFT HAVE always had a soft spot for the Irish Republic. I myself , when embracing communism in my early twenties, fell hook line and sinker for the romanticism of Irish republican history, and the terrible atrocities that the imperial British had brought upon the Irish people.

The Wolfe Tones were the musical accompaniment to Irish republican history. They, like many other such minstrels  poured their sugary ballads down the throats of young idealists on the Left. The Ballad of Kevin Barry brought a particular lump to ones throat: while Charles Stewart Parnell, Patrick Pearse, James Connolly Arthur Griffith, and Éamon de Valera were, for a brief period, my comic book heroes who had stood against the might of British imperialism.

There was even, in the 1970s, a certain sympathy for the Provisional IRA, despite their lunatic bombings that did not distinguish between Protestants and Catholics in the North…after all, as they would have said, “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”.

The British had been the Irish Republic’s scapegoats for hundreds of years before 1922, and continued to be so after. It amazes me to think that a people with such a loathing for the British could contemplate coming to these isles in order to find work and live among us. It makes me wonder whether the comic book heroes that enchanted me during my youth were ever real…if so, then those Irish that have, over the years swamped these shores are hypocrites.

The cruel mythology that that great oppressor of the Irish, imperial Britain, has been part of the republic’s folk law for far too long. Over the past decade this over sentimentalised nation (especially across the pond) has allowed the many crimes and injustices within the Irish republic to go unpunished. We have had a child abuse scandal involving the Catholic Church, as well the cruel exploitation of young women involving the same institution…but it was all kept incognito by the Irish political class who must have known what was happening but were happily compliant in what the priests and the sisterhood were up to.

NOW THE IRISH republic is making one those fashionable apologies usually reserved for past colonists, that have gained in popularity since the arrival of the liberal hegemony. Many people may not know that during the Second World War many young men from the Irish republic chose to join the British army  in order to defeat German Nazism. There were some 5,000 young men serving in the Irish republic’s military who decided that Nazism had to have an end put to it. So they joined the British Army; but they paid a heavy price for so doing.

            

             On their return from the battle field, they were treated as traitors by the republic and could not find a living on their home soil: and when Hitler died, the Irish republic held a memorial service under the auspices of no less a figure than Éamon de Valera. But like everything else in the republic’s history that disturbed the romantic illusion of a poor benighted people living off potatoes thanks to their British persecutor…the potato famine was not, by the way, the fault of the British.

Éire has dinned well on its loathing of the British for many decades. But there is another side to the Irish that you never see, as for instance, in a John Ford western, where they are represented as  lovable rogues dragged from some Irish bog, and put in a cavalry uniform on their arrival in America

It was said, with some truth, that as the Irish landed in New York, they were put into police uniforms. The reality was more like the depiction in the film Gangs of New York. Hollywood had romanticised the Irish. But the reality in the Irish Republic under de Valera was a virtual theocracy where the Catholic church took care of state welfare; and we are now beginning to learn how brutal to those poor unfortunates who found themselves under its wing, the church was.

THOSE BRAVE YOUNG Irishmen who fought to defeat Nazism were not allowed to work in the republic on their return. Their families also suffered from the ignominy of one of the members putting on a British uniform.

            

            Éamon de Valera was a romantic medievalist who believed, like Hitler, in a wholly idealistic and pastoral view of his country that never ever lived up to reality. A country of rich greenery decorated by sturdy hard working peasants labouring the land, and in  supplication to Catholicism. A land which, had it not been for the British, need never have sent generation after generation of its young people across the pond, or, bewilderingly, to the evil empire itself.

            

             Irish history is faced with one final irony. For hundreds of years the Irish have fought the British in order to secure their independent nationhood. From the Late 1960s and the beginning of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, through the campaign of terrorism by the  Provisional IRA costing thousands of lives on all sides in order attain a united Ireland…a nation state for the Irish, in fact.

            

             Now what do we see? We see Eire willingly and freely giving up the national identity it cherished and spilled blood for, for hundreds of years and fought at great cost to its republican heroes…and for what? To become a canton of Europe – a mere county council, in fact. This is what the Irish Republic has sold their heroes out to…and they cannot blame the British for this ultimate betrayal.