Sayeeda Warsi and the BNP


by Sunny
1st October, 2007 at 9:06 am    

So, Tory party peer Sayeeda Warsi gives an interview to the Independent on Sunday and says:

“The BNP will look at what issue it is locally that they can exploit and the other political parties are not seen to be dealing with and they will play to that,” she says. Far from ignoring the issue of immigration, she thinks it should be confronted head on. “I think we need to have the debate. One of the problems why the BNP has been allowed to grow is sometimes certainly the Labour Party took the view that if we ignore them they will just go away,” she says.

Indeed, she says, people who back the extreme-right party, criticised for its racist and homophobic agenda, may even have a point. “They have some very legitimate views. People who say ‘we are concerned about crime and justice in our communities – we are concerned about immigration in our communities’,” she said.

Predictably, some people have gotten quite angry.

“Pandering to racist views peddled by the BNP and bought by BNP voters is grotesque,” said Simon Woolley of OBV. “This country would collapse if it wasn’t for migrant workers.”

But Spectator blogger Clive Davis (who is the only sensible one of that lot) says:

But the words themselves are surely just an honest attempt to grapple with a genuine problem. I can’t believe Operation Black Vote are in a rage. Yes, there’s always a risk that racist groups will try to exploit Warsi’s remarks, but if we accept she’s talking in good faith, there isn’t a problem.

I’ve said before we should be more intelligent in dealing with the BNP, so I don’t disagree.

But there’s several points that Sayeeda, Clive and everyone else is missing.

1) The Tories care about immigration because they don’t want poor non-white people arriving here, but working class voters actually care more about housing and public transport. Because WC voters believe immigrants are reponsible for declining social services, they vote BNP. But public transport and affordable housing aren’t Tory high priorities so it’s no use voting for them.

2) Sayeeda is using the BNP to play up the immigration debate but in the last elections they remained stagnant across the country. So there’s no electoral proof people are defecting to the BNP enmasse despite the right-wing media’s scaremongering. She just wants to talk immigration so David Cameron can avoid it at his party conference.

3) If the BNP do come to prominence in certain areas up north, it’s usually on a campaign against Muslims by using terrorism or paedophilia. I don’t expect she think those are “legitimate views”. So what the hell is she playing at?

4) “…we need to have the debate [on immigration]” is the silliest phrase bandied about these days. We are having a debate! The Tories haven’t stopped talking about it for 40 years! And it lost them the last two elections despite making it top priority. What they actually mean is that voters aren’t listening to them enough on the issue so they’ll continue to pretend that the debate on immigration is being supressed.

5) If people voting for a racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, nazi etc party should be listened to, even if we don’t like their views, then why not apply those standards to British Muslims who join the similarly racist and anti-semitic (but non-violent) group Hizb ut-Tahrir? Is it coz they iz brown?

Update: Chris Dillow is thinking along the same lines.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Race politics,The BNP






49 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Indigo Jo Blogs

    Response to Sayeeda Warsi on the BNP…

    Pickled Politics: Sayeeda Warsi and the BNP I thought someone would write a cogent reply to Sayeeda Warsi’s interview in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday, in which she claimed that the BNP have some legitimate views and that people who vote……




  1. Clive Davis — on 1st October, 2007 at 10:04 am  

    Hi Sunny,

    Thanks for the kind words!

    Agree with you on a lot of this, but, speaking as a non-Tory (most of the time… My views are very blurred) I think you’re being unfair to the Conservatives on the general issue of social policy. I agree there’s a hard-core of racists and blue-rinses who’ll never be reconciled to having non-whote faces around them. But I doubt it’s true of the leadership.

    If the BNP were stagnant, there’s always the fear that the immigration could suddenly surge out of control, leaving mainstream politicians at the mercy of the lunatics. Any minor issue could have that effect, so Warsi and Co are right to be on guard.

    Actually, I don’t think we’ve had a debate on the recent surge in immigration. It’s generally been a question of top-down leadership and waffle about the EU (which I support, incidentally).

    Im not 100 per cent convinced about the comparison with Hizb ut-Tahrir. Obviously, there’s no point trying to woo the committed racist, but don’t a lot of people who vote for the BNP do it as a protest vote about hoising, crime and general social conditions?

  2. Katherine — on 1st October, 2007 at 10:55 am  

    Her response has been quite a sensible one, in which she says that she is talking about voters who have been fooled and mislead my the BNP into thinking that they speak for them – i.e. you have to listen to such people and address their concerns, otherwise they keep voting for BNP (having seen the sophisticated manipulation and half truths present in a BNP leaflet that got stuffed through my door before the last general election, I’d say that there is every risk that some people could be fooled into forgetting what the BNP do actually stand for). Taking her on good faith, then that, I think, is not pandering to the BNP as such.

    Of course, this is to take her comment out of the context of the laughable excuse for an immigration debate that goes on amongst politicians and tabloids, which makes the whole thing somewhat more questionable. Taken a different way, she may be suggesting out-BNP’ing the BNP. But I hope not.

  3. Leon — on 1st October, 2007 at 10:57 am  

    Anyone else think this is another example of the Tory leadership preparing for the coming right wing revolt?

  4. Leon — on 1st October, 2007 at 11:17 am  

    Interesting piece here.

  5. The Heresiarch — on 1st October, 2007 at 11:28 am  

    “The Tories care about immigration because they don’t want poor non-white people arriving here”. Says who? Even leaving aside the fact that many of the problems, perceived and real, are being caused by EU immigrants who by and large are white (something conveniently ignored by those who assume opponents of unlimited immigration must be “racist”), your blatant Toryphobia should not go unanswered. All that most Conservatives want to see is a reasonable debate about what kind of population change the country can absorb without breaking down. If the level of immigration puts unsustainable pressure on housing and social services, then sooner or later the result will be a massive, and ugly, public backlash. Pretending that it will all go away will, ultimately, only play into the hands of the far right.

  6. Kismet Hardy — on 1st October, 2007 at 11:42 am  

    Yeah I read her comments and missed the point too

    Point is, so will a lot of other people

    Namely, the ones that aren’t really hardline but have been tempted towards BNP because they’ve been unhappy about immigration and multicultaralism and division. Now the Tories and even the Muslims are saying they’ve been right too

    Politicians of all people should know that dangerous comments can get taken out of context so it’s best not to say them in the first place

  7. funkg — on 1st October, 2007 at 11:44 am  

    Face up to it, there are plenty of long settled BME people who do care about an upsurge in immigration. I hear Asian and black people criticise eastern Europeans all the time and wonder how many more people are going to settle in London and elsewhere. Most new migrants are white therefore many Asians and black people feel comfortable talking about immigration. Why should it be taboo for Asians and blacks to talk about immigration? Tell me why else do I hear of many Asians wanting to get out of London? Fact is most of the British born children of the eastern Europeans will be nominally accepted as English because of the colour of their skins, a ‘luxury’ that Asians and blacks will not have, however long their families have lived in the UK.

    There is a tendency for many commentators to naturally assume that most professional Asians or black people are all fully paid up members of the metropolitan liberal classes. I can assure you many are not, they can be just as right wing and reactionary as your sun or daily mail reader. Simon Wooley predictable knee jerk criticism of Sayeeda Warsi, doesn’t take into account what many people including BMEs feel and want to express but don’t publically.

  8. newmania — on 1st October, 2007 at 11:48 am  

    You start well which what I love about this importnat ( and funny) blog but IMHO fall inot the usual assumptions

    The views of the Conservative Party in non white people are no different to those of the Labour Party . How can you go on trotting out this rancid smear. Does the COnservatuve Part value the country more , yes , does it value our traditions more , yes of course .That is not the same thing . Labour voters vote BNP not Conservative voters and the reasons are far more tribal that your admittedly half-way-there, analysis ( ie you spot that the BNP are a socialist Party). The WC do not only worry about services they worry about their culture being swamped and in many are racists so don`t start claiming that there is any unique virtue either to the working class or to the immigrants who come here who , as I have demonstrated generally have far greater prejudices against each other than any of the indigenous population. I would point that un-remarked upon by the Press the New Statesman Browns poodle paper has run several sympathetic article about the BNP and there have more or less racist noises off for months now by embattled marginal labour MPs.
    “We are having a debate! The Tories haven’t stopped talking about it for 40 years! And it lost them the last two elections despite making it top priority” And that debate had been won by those who wish to see a sensible limit on immigration which is now running at four time the already high level of the 90s The majority faab[voroing a balanced but determined control of our own borders is overwhelming . You entirely miss the point that immigration is a social cost born usually by the least privileged but a total gain to big business. The vast majority have wanted the floods under control for years but have been frustrated by a the ultra progressive minority who occupy the swing voter central positions . These people resolutely failt to send their won children to schools which are failing under the weight of social breakdown and up to 8 languages .Refer to any survey you like and if you have none I have plenty. !Yes the debate is suppressed because people like you accuses anyone mentioning it of covert racism as you have done yet again in this. The figures have been falsified for years and it has only been tie work of immigration watch that had lead the government to about face on the whole matter . AS for using terrorism…I think it is safe to say we would rather not be bombed than to have this rather neat “argument winner”

    The BNP are racist , homophobic and so on and as you say , so are many Muslims . these are not the views of either group that are listened to . No it is not because you iz anything. Muslims are listened to when they say something that is worth listening to . Not alter your foreign policy to suit us or bombs will go off as the BMC did to my horror . Not , we should have out own country , not 7.7 has nothing to do with us . talk sense and you will earn a hearing like anyone else .

    You must at least acknowledge that the Conservative Party is infinitely more sensitive to the feelings of those who might infer some exclusion than the Labour Party with its “ British jobs for the British “ national socialism., so despite stratung with the best of intentions you have
    1 Repeated the lie that Conservatives are inherently racist which they are demonstrably not .
    2 Denied the PC suppression of immigration debate which is now accepted across the political spectrum
    3 Absurdly ignored the reasons why Islamic extremism is viewed somewhat more askance than the BNP…although I asl agree you have good counter view here tat should be recognised .

    Mrs. N is always telling me I don`t know what its like to wonder if ” We are going to have issues” whenever you meet someone so i can undrestand a delicate antenae for persecutution .On the other irrational fears are no basis for progress which i `m sure is what we all want. Part of the that progress is for the legitimate desire of UK nationals to control their own border and the rate of change of its cultural mix. I read that 60% of ethnic minority ( ICM) members do indeed support the majority in this wish and that is enormously encouraging that we are beyond the ya boo politics of yeeterday

  9. Roger — on 1st October, 2007 at 11:49 am  

    “people voting for a racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, nazi etc party should be listened to”…and then told they’re wrong and why they’re wrong.
    Ditto for HuT.

    In fact, much of the ant-immigrant sentiments expressed by “white working class” people are not racist, because many- most- of the immigrants competing for working class jobs are white Europeans. Most of the brown/black/yellow/magenta immigrants coming in now are highly-skilled and well-paid middle class people employed for specific jobs. The most obviously racist sentiments I have come across have been expressed by working class MEs who argue that knowledge of English is- or should be- a stronger unifying factor than colour of skin.

  10. newmania — on 1st October, 2007 at 12:23 pm  

    knowledge of English is- or should be- a stronger unifying factor than colour of skin.

    Amusingly the percentage of those who would pass English O level is only maginally below those who pass it anyway as a proportion. 38% and 43 % respectively ( as per . The Eye). I do not see how a view of coherence that does not revolve around race can possibly be racist though. This is just silly

  11. Ravi Naik — on 1st October, 2007 at 12:49 pm  

    “…we need to have the debate [on immigration]” is the silliest phrase bandied about these days. We are having a debate! The Tories haven’t stopped talking about it for 40 years!”

    Well, there hasn’t been a debate on immigration where a consensus has come out. The anti-immigration crowd portrays the ugly immigrant, whereas the status quo portrays the good immigrant, and calls the other camp as racist and xenophobic, and there you go. Perhaps there are two types of immigrants, and we should probably focus on getting the good ones, while keeping away the bad ones.

  12. Kismet Hardy — on 1st October, 2007 at 1:08 pm  

    Keep those Iraqis out for a start, they start wars

  13. ChrisC — on 1st October, 2007 at 1:12 pm  

    “Perhaps there are two types of immigrants, and we should probably focus on getting the good ones, while keeping away the bad ones.”

    Can’t be done within the EU unfortunately.

    The debate has ratcheted up because what was modest net immigration has turned into very large scale net immigration.

  14. Boyo — on 1st October, 2007 at 1:32 pm  

    I think the fact that there has been no debate, resulting in any agreed decision within the country as a whole, has driven some people into the arms of extremists – its an expression of their disempowerment. I don’t think BNP voters are all racists, but I suspect they are all angry at what they perceive as being ignored.

    But I also suspect the “debate”, like the BNP, is past its sell-by-date. Racism really is moronic and even most morons now get that. It was pointed out by someone else that many non-whites are just as exercised about immigration – yet they too will be powerless to do anything. Years ago, a young white working class girl told me how they had responded to this with the slogan – black and white unite against the asians.

    But they remain racists, as any fool kno. So they won’t get anywhere.

    Actually immigration is all about class – my gripe is that a Labour Govt. encourages it to undercut the bargaining power of the workers who can’t compete with 5 poles to a room, lovely folk though they may be. Also, being materialists, they have little or no appreciation of the impact on our communal and national cohesion and identity. Its a weird Capitalist/Marxist monster, New Labour.

  15. newmania — on 1st October, 2007 at 1:37 pm  

    I for one would like to know if there is any level of immigration that Suny would say was too much. We are accepting about a ‘Liverpool’ every five years at the moment. Does he accept that any country has the right to choose who will live in it and who will not ?

  16. sonia — on 1st October, 2007 at 1:39 pm  

    how can there be a “debate” on immigration when actually that term is bandied about but clearly different groups all mean different things by it. for different people – it represents different fears, and a completely different understanding of immigration practices today. I have said this before – but clearly no one is wanting to take it on board. that is the point – that Everyone is missing, and clearly no one really wants to delve into.

    Why would they when it such a convenient mystifying term that gets people across the board worked up?

  17. sonia — on 1st October, 2007 at 1:47 pm  

    immigration is about limiting the size of a group’s membership – clear and simple. if you believe in that group’s right to exist as a separate group, then i fail to see why you would have a problem with the concept of limiting entry.

  18. Sunny — on 1st October, 2007 at 3:05 pm  

    Hi Clive and others, you make the point that:

    I agree there’s a hard-core of racists and blue-rinses who’ll never be reconciled to having non-whote faces around them. But I doubt it’s true of the leadership.

    Well, I refer you to the recent article by Michael Portillo, pining for the good days of Enoch Powell.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1351

  19. Sunny — on 1st October, 2007 at 3:38 pm  

    On the comparison with HuT

    but don’t a lot of people who vote for the BNP do it as a protest vote about hoising, crime and general social conditions?

    Similarly, a lot of people support HuT because they say it articulates their anger about British/American involvement in the Middle East. Most HuT supporters I know haven’t even read their draft constitution much less signed up to it. HuT is similarly very clever to jump on existing concerns (like the time they set up a front group called Stop Islamophobia) and use that to get people to think about a Caliphate.

  20. Soso — on 1st October, 2007 at 4:04 pm  

    I for one would like to know if there is any level of immigration that Suny would say was too much. We are accepting about a ‘Liverpool’ every five years at the moment. Does he accept that any country has the right to choose who will live in it and who will not?

    You’ll never get an answer to that question, and you’ll never get a true debate on the issue.

    Immigration provides a great deal of cheap labour…and therefore profits, and it is spin-doctored by a series of opportunists/sophists who see ethnic communities as captive constituencies that can be pandered to and mollycoddled in exchange for a steady paycheque.

    Any proletarian revolt that could conceivably occur in the present climate would, thus, come in the form of Far Right activism.

    The euro-elites fear the Far Right not because of moral outrage over racism, but rather because Far Right policies would put a strain on their profits and bank balances by firming up the labour market and by improving salary structures, benefits and working conditions

    Immigration =’s more profit.

    Immigration =’s lower wages.

    Sunny asserts that Tories are anti-immigrant, when in fact they and THEIR constituency….the business community… are by far the biggest boosters of massive uncontrolled migration. It is they who started it, and it is they who’ll increase levels of it should they win the next elections.

    One need only look to the U.S. where successive Democrat/Republican administrations have granted amnesty to millions of illegals to see how this operates. Border guards who’ve intercepted clandestine migrants have been arrested and jailed, whereas large corporations, especially in the agro sector, caught employing illegal immigrants….. sometimes by the 100s and in horrendous conditions…. have been given a complete pass. The business sector is able, then, to flaunt the law, to break the law and to do so with total impunity.

    And yet, people still don’t GET it!

    Massive uncontrolled immigrations is, I’d even say, THE cornerstone of a corrupt and crony-capitalist *game-plan*.

    So don’t expect a debate, and indeed expect any talk of a debate to be labelled racist.

  21. Sunny — on 1st October, 2007 at 4:57 pm  

    I for one would like to know if there is any level of immigration that Suny would say was too much. We are accepting about a ‘Liverpool’ every five years at the moment. Does he accept that any country has the right to choose who will live in it and who will not ?

    Newmania, I would on balance agree with you that there is perhaps too much immigration. But, to me, the problem isn’t necessarily that so many people are coming in but the fact that our political and economic system cannot respond fast enough to changing demographics.

    Incidentally, it may be that a population the size of Liverpool is coming here… but around a similar size is emigrating or returning back to their home country.

    Let’s get to the heart of the problem – is immigration a problem because of the impact it has on social cohesion and public transport? Yes? Then we should find ways to strenghten them… because economically immigration is good for everyone.

  22. newmania — on 1st October, 2007 at 4:59 pm  

    But if the alteration of Britain can be presented in such positive terms, then it is all the more remarkable that it has occurred without the British people’s consent being sought.

    This such a common complaint made by BNP types that it’s all the more bizarre that a supposedly intelligent commentator is making it. Did the countries that the British empire invaded have any choice in the matter?,

    Or indeed the Ottoman Empire ? Or the French or the Spanish or the English when they were incoporated into the Norman empire Is the point here that we are being “invaded ” but thats alright because we have an extended group and ana-chonological guilt for …whatever it is we are suppose to be repsonsible for.
    I have read Enochj Powell`s Rivers of Blood speech and it is pretty disgusting piece of work. It is the ltter that makes it so which he inculded at the last muinute and always regretted

  23. newmania — on 1st October, 2007 at 5:12 pm  

    Incidentally, it may be that a population the size of Liverpool is coming here… but around a similar size is emigrating or returning back to their home country.

    Sorry but that us flat out wrong.I was refferring to the net migration not gross immigration about twice as many come as go and I am well aware of the difference . I don`t defend Enoch Powell and I am grateful, for the newbies who offer a lot ( especially to eat).. Something one has to remember is that not every question is one of ethnicity.

    I equally disgaree with soulless nu Lab types on the importance of “Englishness” and everything else.In a land of perfect racial harmony we will still all hate eachother much of the time.I am delighted to see the Conservative Party recruiting people from all backgrounds where we like to talk about just about anything else if possible. It is a mistake I feel to ascribe certain political views an automatic place in such discussions

    Incidentally do any Hindus ever comment here ?

  24. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 1st October, 2007 at 6:24 pm  

    Incidentally, it may be that a population the size of Liverpool is coming here… but around a similar size is emigrating or returning back to their home country.

    Sunny, do you have evidence to show that it is zero sum?

    TFI

  25. Soso — on 1st October, 2007 at 6:27 pm  

    Let’s get to the heart of the problem – is immigration a problem because of the impact it has on social cohesion and public transport? Yes? Then we should find ways to strenghten them… because economically immigration is good for everyone.

    Economically immigration is bad for everyone except a small minority at the top of the pyramid.

    Real wages in western countries haven’t gone up in years….in fact, almost since mass immigration began. Rates of unionisation have dropped dramatically, the middle class has almost disappeared and the gap between rich and poor widens every year.

    Immigration is responsable for a lot of this because it gives employers carte-blanche to manipulate wage-rates in favourable ways.

    From the end of WWII until 1965, when the current views on immigration were first embraced, the middle classes of both Europe and America made remakable economic progress. Since the late 60s, however, that progress has stalled and for some things have slid backwards.

    So immigration doesn’t offer economic ANY benefits to the vast majority of people.

    Sunny asks us to improve transport/infrastructures. Yeah, companies large and small, many of which pay few if any business taxes, now ask us to fork over OUR taxes to improve (subsidise?) transportation networks used free of charge by the same businesses that have used cheap migrant labout to destroy salary structures.

    Perhaps we should sprinkle rose-petals in the path of the chief of The Bank Of England every time he sets foot outside.

    “Is there anything else we poor working people can do for you, Sire?”

  26. Tony — on 1st October, 2007 at 7:15 pm  

    You seem to have quite a thing for Michael Portillo, Sunny. One man’s opinion does not necessarily equate to fact – as your own posting above makes all too clear. How many years have to elapse before you feel unable to say “Oh but look what the Tories did when they were in power”? Spurious argument, plenty of conjecture and some unjustified stereotyping in your post Sunny. If you were saying that about Labour I am sure people would be saying you belong to the nasty party!

  27. sahil — on 1st October, 2007 at 7:31 pm  

    Anyone watching Jon Snow’s documentary on immigration today on at 8 on channel 4?

  28. Boyo — on 1st October, 2007 at 7:34 pm  

    “… because economically immigration is good for everyone.”

    Despatches at 8 addresses this point, though I have yet to be convinced myself.

  29. Sunny — on 1st October, 2007 at 7:36 pm  

    You seem to have quite a thing for Michael Portillo, Sunny.

    I’m not sure what you’re implying… but if you could address the points in that I’d be happy.

    How many years have to elapse before you feel unable to say “Oh but look what the Tories did when they were in power”?

    I’ve been quite positive towards the Tory party on this blog… to the extent that people thought I was going to join them. You’re clearly not a regular reader. I’d love to see evidence of the Tory party moving on from the old days of naked racism.. and once it does I’ll be happy to.

    If you were saying that about Labour I am sure people would be saying you belong to the nasty party!

    I’m equally disparaging towards Labour. When I wrote my article for the Guardian last year when launching my manifesto, I accused the party of ‘colonial’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities.

    soso: Real wages in western countries haven’t gone up in years….in fact, almost since mass immigration began.

    And if I cite you evidence to the contrary? Where’s yours? Besides, you live in the US… so I don’t even know what the hell you’re on about the middle classes disappearing. Deluded idiot.

  30. Sunny — on 1st October, 2007 at 7:39 pm  

    TFI: Sunny, do you have evidence to show that it is zero sum?

    I think its a lot more complicated than that. The govt doesn’t know how many people are coming in and out… that’s a given. So any figures will be arbitary.. and out of date. This is why I keep saying the answer should be changing the economic/social system to take mass migration into account rather than pretending that mobility into and out of this country will simply vanish.

    Newmania: Incidentally do any Hindus ever comment here ?

    Yes, plenty. Rohin is Hindu, among others.

  31. El Cid — on 1st October, 2007 at 7:52 pm  

    sunny, i liked your first point. It goes to the heart of the matter, which is that “more people are voting for a racist party because they think no one else represents their viewpoint”
    Is that lazy thinking?

    funkg is right on the button, as always.. except, I honestly do think that many brown skinned people, particularly but not exclusively west indians are accepted as English by many if not most anglo-irish natives. I reckon for example that you are, funkg

  32. Soso — on 1st October, 2007 at 8:36 pm  

    And if I cite you evidence to the contrary? Where’s yours? You have no evidence to the contrary!

    My *deluded* views are supported by countless economic studies even those done by right wing think-tanks. Rates of unionisation are the lowest they’ve been since the early 20s and a smaller and smaller minority of rich individuals control a greater and greater proportion of wealth in ALL western countries.

    Your attacks on Portillo and your references to not wanting *little brown people* all over the place is nonsense as well. Pro-immigration pundits have always managed to frame what is an economic question in terms of race, but even that line of defense is faltering

    In the past few years the UK has imported a million Poles, all of whom are white. Hundreds of thousands of others have arrived from other former East Block countries and are white as well

    As a matter of fact, there are now so many Poles of voting age living in the UK that this week candidates in the Polish presidentials are in England campaigning for election.

    A million votes makes all the difference.

    And what of the numerous attacks on Poles recently by british yobs? Can one call these attacks racist if both victim and perp are of the same skin colour? Are they not, in some sense, motived by a form of economic warfare, one in which are current elites pit poor native-born workers against even poorer immigrant labourers?

    Yeah, when the immigrant labourers are of the same race, the vulgar economic angle to the whole scam becomes much more apparent; 2 quid buys more in Poland than 20 quid buys in the UK, so pay the imports a 10th of what Brits are paid and then charge the same price for those plumbing repairs.

    Yes, it’s all about a good chicken tandoori and ethnic street festivals!

  33. Sunny — on 1st October, 2007 at 9:55 pm  

    Soso: My *deluded* views are supported by countless economic studies even those done by right wing think-tanks.

    But you haven’t cited any.

    See Chris Dillow.

    The CBI has said plenty of times that immigration is economically positive for Britain. So have reports by PWC and other consultancies (the hotbeds of political correctness they are!).

    The rest is just drivel. You don’t even live in the UK! You just make things up as you go along…

  34. Boyo — on 1st October, 2007 at 10:01 pm  

    Well I didn’t think Jon Snow added a great deal to the debate except for stating the bleeding obvious. The only “surprise” for me was the Portugese, bloody scroungers!

    And as for those THREE MILLION Brits shifted off the dole onto disability…

    Certainly there appeared to be no economic case made, unless I missed it?

    Highlights inc. the white Powellite moaning about the foreigners taking jobs which the locals wouldn’t take because they “got wet”.

    The Bradford boy implying racism is behind the reason he didn’t get a job from “white” businesses.

    Nothing particularly new though, just the usual poor people scrabbling over scarce resources. Maybe Jon learned something though.

  35. sahil — on 1st October, 2007 at 10:26 pm  

    “Maybe Jon learned something though.”

    Bit harsh, I think he was stating the bleeding obvious to people who only read the press and have no direct dealing with immigrants or have never been immigrants themselves.

  36. newmania — on 2nd October, 2007 at 1:42 am  

    http://iznewmania.blogspot.com/

    Sunny I have excavated some of my immigration file and collated enough facts to cause you to re-think your main assertions which are demonstrably false .It was too long to put here.

    Tell you one thing ,I have had enough of race and immigration to last a year….back to Conservtaive infighting for me I think

  37. Ravi Naik — on 2nd October, 2007 at 2:46 am  

    A surreal BNP fan site.

  38. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2007 at 5:40 am  

    Soso @ 33,

    I’d have thought you could reasonably have said that attacks on Poles were racist and disgusting. Personally, I’d not have used the scum who do that sort of thing to support my ‘arguement’, but there you go.

    I’ll stand corrected, but I seem to remember a Private Eye cartoon where folk were looking at a stately home and one said to the other, “No, it doesn’t belong to the Lord of the Manor, it belongs to the plumber.” Shortages of skilled resources are inflationary, and we don’t want that, do we?

    As for vulgar economic warfare, I seriously doubt it. Plumbers are, by their very nature, a Masonic order. I suspect it is just chavs that don’t work, couldn’t work, that subscribe to the ridiculous view that hitting folk is an economic imperative. But, what do I know?

    You really haven’t got any idea of what a market is about, have you? Bet your a UKIP fan.

    And, contrary to what you purport to think, this has always been an immigrant nation, back to time immemorial. Didn’t do us much harm in the long run, did it?

  39. Boyo — on 2nd October, 2007 at 7:29 am  

    “I suspect it is just chavs that don’t work, couldn’t work, that subscribe to the ridiculous view that hitting folk is an economic imperative.” Are you joking, or are you really an upper-class twat?

    BTW, a bit of trivia – Chav is derived from “Cheltenham Average”, the charming term the gals of Cheltenham College used to describe the people of the tan.

  40. Boyo — on 2nd October, 2007 at 7:29 am  

    Or should that be tine?

  41. newmania — on 2nd October, 2007 at 9:28 am  

    You really haven’t got any idea of what a market is about, have you

    Markets are not always the best solution and they are useless left uncontrolled . Its like trying to mow the lawn with a comnbine harvester.People who work in them , Like me , do not have the religious attachment that others soemtimes aquire from American neo Cons

  42. Billy — on 2nd October, 2007 at 11:33 am  

    “BTW, a bit of trivia – Chav is derived from “Cheltenham Average”, the charming term the gals of Cheltenham College used to describe the people of the tan.”

    No it isn’t – it’s a Romany word.

  43. Boyo — on 2nd October, 2007 at 11:59 am  

    Maybe it’s both?

  44. Philip Marshall — on 2nd October, 2007 at 12:18 pm  

    “knowledge of English is- or should be- a stronger unifying factor than colour of skin.”

    Comments like this underline the utter stupidity of politically correct attitudes to race. Why on earth SHOULD language be more unifying than race? Is this a moral imperative? If, in their deepest sub-conscious people feel a greate affinity to someone on the basis of race, are we to tell them off, because these feelings do not conform to left wing dogma? There are plenty of long standing nations and communities that have similair race but different language- Switzerland, India, Spain, Wales, Belgium..in fact, almost all European countries. How many Nations are there that contain different races that do not have racial problems?
    Sorry to be the one to break this to you good people, but this IS about race.

  45. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2007 at 1:24 pm  

    There are plenty of long standing nations and communities that have similair race but different language- Switzerland, India, Spain, Wales, Belgium..

    Well, India has tons of ethnicities contained within and has a very hierarchical social order based on caste, so is a bad example. Spain and Belgium are hardly unified countries, with big separatist movements or schisms based on language and culture.

    What you want to look at, is the United States of America. It is perhaps the best example to follow.

  46. Philip Marshall — on 2nd October, 2007 at 2:26 pm  

    True, Sunny- I have also been following the news from Belgium I suppose my point was not that multi-lingual nations are never divided, just to say that it is futile to pretend that Race does not divide nations. America is an interesting example. When it was founded, it was not united by a common language, and a vote had to be taken on whether the official language would be English or German-I would argue that it was the common race/ethnicity between the two groups that made such an agreement possible.

  47. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2007 at 3:19 pm  

    just to say that it is futile to pretend that Race does not divide nations.

    Race intrinsically does not have to divide nations, it usually comes down to other factors. There are far more divided nations on other issues than race.

  48. Philip Marshall — on 2nd October, 2007 at 3:55 pm  

    On the one hand we are told that race doesnt matter, yet at the same time we are told that black boys need black role models, that black and asian people need more black and asian policeman to police their communities, that ethnic minorities need more of their communities on television or they will feel excluded, there are an army of diversity officers in every council and every workplace, and now race is deemed so ‘unimportant’ that the government is closing down secondary schools and forcing children to attend ‘diverse’ schools to force them to mix, not to mention the legislation that prevents us from discriminating or offending on the basis of race. If this is what Britain is like when race doesnt matter, I’d hate to think how things would be if they did!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.