UKIP: Thanks For Nothing

We've noted before on this blog UKIP's increasingly toxic tendency to blame "everything on immigrants". Previously it was Farage's assertion that he was held up on the M4 motorway due to the fact that "open door immigration has meant that the M4 is not as navigable as it used to be'".

That he was traveling by car early evening on a Friday around a notorious bottleneck on the M4 wasn't taken into consideration. Thus "bloody immigrants" was dog whistle politics writ large.

With this in mind it therefore comes as no surprise to see that Farage believes that immigrants are to blame for children not playing in the streets:

Britons are so ill at ease with levels of immigration in their towns that their children do not play football with their neighbours in the streets, Nigel Farage has said.

The UK Independence Party leader said people in eastern England felt a “deep level of discomfort” about the millions of immigrants who have settled in the UK in the past decade.

He said: “I want to live in a community where our kids play football in the streets of an evening and live in a society that is at ease with itself.

And I sense over the last decade or more we are not at ease"

It's not unfair in our view to believe that Nick Griffin would have been proud of these sentiments. That children may not, or cannot, play in the streets is often down to a myriad of factors, not least its illegal, it's unsafe and that many roads simply have too many cars - ironically Farage's children couldn't play outside his own house, in the street, for this reason alone.

In trying to remove ourselves from the EU however Farage's language is toxic. With what began as a eurosceptic party, has been hijacked by a man who has turned it into a self-promotional vehicle and is prepared as a consequence to condemn the eurosceptic movement in terms which hinder significantly the argument of getting out. So much so that we are set to lose before we even start.

With such language and thus with effectively a self-imposed glass ceiling on support, no wonder the media have begun to catch up with bloggers by noticing belatedly that UKIP's trend is on a downward trajectory.

With so-called 'UKIP strategy' we get a measure of the man when we see this:

“If we went to every town up eastern England and spoke to people about how they felt, their town, their city had changed in the last 15 years, there is a deep level of discomfort, because if you have immigration at these sorts of levels integration doesn’t happen.” 

Note the words "eastern England". It's an odd statement to make for a leader of a party named the United Kingdom Independence Party. What about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales where immigration is not necessarily such a vote winner - immigration has an uneven effect across the country.

But within "eastern England" is the constituency of Thanet South; where Farage is standing to be elected as an MP. It's also next door to where UKIP held its Spring Conference in Margate which had no mobile signal nor internet access.

A professional party with workable facilities at its conference less important than Farage's own campaign it seems. So no policies, no strategy, no exit plan just dog-whistle soundbites to get Farage elected.

Perhaps in this sense it will work and this will please the cult, but in getting us out of the EU no chance.

What a waste of 20 odd years...

The M4 Motorway And Immigration?

 

It's a fair point to make the case that the significant influx of immigrants in the last 10 years has in a number of cases put intolerable pressure on public services in various parts of the country. Thus we see that Farage attempts to make this point as a reason for being late on Friday at a venue in South Wales:

Nigel Farage today blamed immigrants for clogging up Britain's roads after traffic jams meant he missed an event charging Ukip supporters to meet him.

The Ukip leader said he arrived too late for a £25-a-head drinks reception in Port Talbot because the UK's 'open door immigration' policy meant that the M4 'is not as navigable as it used to be'.

However while we're not sure where exactly Farage was held up on the M4, we would query his assertion 'that open door immigration has meant that the M4 is not as navigable as it used to be'.

Like most motorways, the M4 suffers from congestion at busy periods in various locations along its route and has done so for a long time. Particular problem locations are between Reading and Slough and then around Bristol - with junctions connecting with the M32 and the M5.

More notoriously though the bottlenecks intensify as the M4 travels through South Wales as any regular commuter knows. Not long after crossing the (second) Severn bridge, the M4 becomes two lanes around Newport and Cardiff traveling through the Brynglas Tunnels.

To give an indication of how long this section has been an issue an M4 relief road to bypass the tunnels was proposed back in 1991, way before "open door immigration policy".

Then as we move further on towards Port Talbot, the motorway again reduces down two lanes and junctions 40 and 41 have been temporarily closed as an attempt to improve traffic flow - to local residents dismay.

As the National Transport Plan for Wales noted in 2010:

South-east Wales is densely populated, with significant conurbations at Cardiff and Newport and smaller urban areas nearby. Local and long-distance traffic converge in this region, particularly around the M4 motorway

In addition:

...the motorway around Newport does not conform to today’s motorway standards. It lacks continuous hard shoulders, has closely spaced junctions with sub-standard slip road visibility and narrows to a restricted two lane section through the Brynglas Tunnels. Heavy congestion occurs along this stretch and either side of it at peak hours.

Thus when we factor in that Farage was traveling early on a Friday evening is it any wonder he experienced significant delays. There was of course the train - Brunel built it for a reason.

Yet it's a worrying trend and reflection of UKIP's desire to be a single issue party on immigration that, rather than policy and detail, problems are increasingly being put down to immigration alone. Not only does it lend the party to ridicule but it is toxifying the eurosceptic debate.

That said in the short term UKIP have more pressing matters to attend to.

Paddington Bear And UKIP?

It says something of the media combined with the rather aggressive anti-immigrant message of UKIP, that it now means a review of a children's film has to somehow tie in with an anti-UKIP message - and that doesn't reflect well on either UKIP or the media. This from the Spectator:

Deborah Ross revels in this wondrously British new film - and its anti-Ukip message

And this from Michael Bond himself (my emphasis):

So Bond’s not a UKIP supporter? He winces. “A dreadful thought, I can’t think of anything worse. I’m a great believer in being a member of the EU. I think it was one of the best things Churchill ever did. I don’t want us to leave Europe.

Though in this case I think Mr Bond should stick to writing children's stories - history and politics is clearly not his forte.

What's becoming apparent though such views which infiltrate a simple review of a children's film becomes just another example of UKIP fundamentally poisoning the 'out' campaign...

That New Treaty

As Witterings From Witney observes we were privileged this morning to have "a member of our real government give up his time to share his thoughts" as Barroso appeared on Andrew Marr (interview starts 44:13). As expected Marr gave him a rather easy ride, though he acknowledged that reform of the EU involved Treaty change.

But to Barroso’s credit, in stark contrast to our own politicians, he did not hide the real intent of the EU (the full transcript of his interview can be found here). Barroso made clear that Cameron’s wish to renegotiate the freedom of movement, was not possible as it infringes on the four fundamental freedoms (my emphasis throughout):

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
We have to make a clear distinction. One thing is freedom of movement, I don’t think it is possible to renegotiate. It’s a fundamental principle of the internal market. We have an internal market based on the freedom of movement- of goods, of services, of capital and of people -so the British people, British companies have unrestricted access to the internal market.

So I don’t ...

ANDREW MARR:
So that’s not up for grabs, okay.

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
I don’t think it’s possible…

Barroso then notes that reforming EU treaties is “very difficult”:

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
That’s what I think David Cameron is expecting. Now I have to be very honest. The reforms of the treaties are extremely difficult in the European Union because they require unanimity. So any point that Britain wants to make for a reform of the treaty requires the other twenty - seven countries …they are sovereign countries as well, to accept

Crucially though, while the rest of the UK media is remaining silent, Barroso offered up more substantial confirmation that a new Treaty is on its way:

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
I think sooner or later [deeper fiscal union] will be unavoidable to have reforms for deeper integration for the Euro area. And by the way it’s not only the pro-Europeans. The markets are demanding that, and in fact we have been moving in that direction in respect of the current treaty.

I cannot say a single European government ... but increased governance. Yes certainly because at the end - and we have learned this through the financial crisis - at the end the solidity, the credibility of a currency depends on the solidity of the institutional or political construction behind it.

ANDREW MARR:
Are you speaking for Europe or not in effect. But that kind of change would require a presumably a new treaty?

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
Yes...

ANDREW MARR:
It just seems to me that what David Cameron is saying he wants, which is a much looser European Union, is not what’s going to happen, and he’s going to be confronted with this deeper Europe.

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
What I think it’s important to have in mind is the following. I don’t see a fundamental contradiction between deepening the Euro area - that is certainly desirable - and having some flexibility for the European Union provided the general framework is kept as it is. For instance, we have already now countries that are the Euro, countries who are not in Euro. We have the Schengen where Britain is not a member and we have, for instance, some opt - outs for justice and home affairs. So it is possible, if there is wisdom on all sides and if it’s a constructive discussion, to come to some arrangement. 

Barroso lays it out clearly that a two tier EU is now on the cards - with no "fundamental contradiction". The EU is going for deeper integration leaving non-Euro members behind. In other words the "flexibility" will be the associate membership option of the new Treaty.

Revolution?

With membership of the EU comes the free movement of people. This is a fundamental principle of the EU. So when we see apparent regrets over immigration from former Labour Minister Jack Straw, who like many in Labour supports membership, we can only conclude his real regret was not to delay the influx for seven years which would have conveniently dumped the problem on Cameron’s lap:

"Other existing EU members, notably France and Germany, decided to stick to the general rule which prevented migrants from these new states from working until 2011. But we thought that it would be good for Britain if these folk could come and work here from 2004”.

This 'blame the Tories' mentality is illustrated neatly by David Blunkett:

[Blunkett] also accused the government of "burying their head in the sand" over the scale of Roma settlement in the UK.

It’s irrelevant whether they came here in 2004 or in 2011. It’s just a question of time, it doesn’t alter the fact we have lost control of our borders, which is completely in line with EU law. Losing control of borders is both Labour and Tory policy. (Incidentally one notes the more sympathetic treatment Blunkett gets over potentially inflammatory language in contrast with Farage on the issue of immigration).

Thus with the opening of our borders in a few weeks time to Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants (the EU seven year limit expires) we get small-minded Westminster squabbling trying desperately to hide the EU elephant in the room. But squabbling is all it is, nothing will be done, no action taken. Our impotency laid bare. Whether we as a country agree with mass immigration or multi-culturalism is not relevant, the crucial point is we weren’t asked.

But that politicians can get away with this is because our so-called fourth estate fails to scrutinise our Parliament properly. Nothing illustrates this better than Peter Oborne in the Telegraph who writes one of the most stupid bone-headed comments I've read in a long time. A man who has been privately educated, went to Cambridge and gloated over his “predictions” of the failure of the Euro in his "Guilty Men" pamphlet writes the following without any sense of irony: 

The decision will be enforced by anonymous officials and jurists. Without intending to, the European Union is turning into the enemy of democracy

Without intending to? How can such stupidity exist? From a paid journalist? One is inclined to bash the bloke over the head with a copy of the Treaty of Rome or better still batter him with a hardback copy of the Great Deception.

What the immigration question highlights though with great clarity is those at the coal face of everyday life have to suffer the consequences of decisions made by those with the money and means to make themselves immune from those very same consequences.

Our system is broken, it's in desperate need of repair.

Immigration: The Blame Game

I'm not at all interested in the details of Chris Bryant's immigration speech which will be made later today. Unless it mentions our relationship with the EU, which I think we can safely assume it won't, then it's meaningless at best.

The extracts certainly indicate that Labour's strategy is to blame someone else to disguise the lack of will to deal with the root causes. Even better, blame multimillion corporations (you can almost hear the pantomime boo hiss from Labour ranks):

[Next] was criticised yesterday by Labour, which accused "unscrupulous employers" of choosing cheaper foreign workers over local British candidates to save money.

Rather like the pathetic Tory campaign, pictured above, it's nothing but empty gestures. One can almost guess that Bryant will manage to squeeze in the phrase, or one like it; "tough on migration from newly joined EU members". Obmitting of course to mention that such measures only applies for 7 years - which is why Romania and Bulgaria's restrictions are up next year.

It's all so wearily predictable.

Update: Actually it was less than wearily predictable, the whole exercise has completely unraveled so much so even the NewStatesman are unimpressed.

The Use Of Language

What becomes very apparent when fighting against the UK's membership of the EU is that pro-EU arguments are based less on facts and more on insults disguised as implied phrases and the warped interpretation of words.

An example of this, is the use of the word "progressive" particularly by the Labour party:

Over the last decade Policy Network has performed a momentous role in the development of progressive thinking, bringing us together as a global progressive family.

For example this:

Members of the Labour Party can become PES activists and get involved in PES activities and campaigns that promote progressive politics on European level

However...the word "progressive" has one meaning but two outcomes. Clearly Labour believe, and use the term, on the basis that it has positive outcomes. The problem is the other outcome describes something that is getting worse leading to an unsatisfactory situation. Mrs TBF for example has 'progressive multiple sclerosis' (I write this to make a point rather than to illicit sympathy), thus the word progressive can also have completely negative connotations.

In light of this, one is also reminded of the term "Little Englander". I've never yet met a pro-EU advocate who can fully explain to me what this term means, especially given that its use in terms of EU membership is contradictory to its origins. Instead it has turned into a term of abuse, based on no facts, which seems largely accepted but on little basis why. It's a term of abuse that can be easily negated by the argument that many EU and European countries have, in various forms, rejected aspects of further EU integration; Denmark, Ireland and Norway who cannot be accused of this. No-one is seriously going to accuse the French who rejected the original EU constitution, of being "Little Englanders".

Thus we come to the thorny issue of immigration.The British public have been concerned about the unprecedented influx in the last decade* and the subsequent fake concern shown by the Tories, Labour and even the Lib Dems very clearly indicates that. However until recently using the term immigration was deliberately used to imply being a racist as a way of shutting down the argument by the use of redefining words.

The deep irony is though our country's current immigration policy is by most definitions racist, a position that is supported by all 3 main parties by virtue of our membership of the EU. A cursory glance at the above picture confirms that. Anyone entering our country is defined by their passport and which country they come from. From EU member Lithuania? Fine enter the easy lane. From non-EU member India? Sorry queue in the 'harder to enter' lane.

This is discrimination personified by the EU - the rules are not applied evenly across all nationalities trying to enter our country. It is a discriminatory policy based on country origins and therefore racist - a situation supported by our establishment. But then changing the meaning of words means getting away with it....

*hattip for the link Witterings from Witney

Unraveling

Perhaps it's weariness on my part or the expectation that it wouldn't be long before others clock Cameron's speech on immigration as the nonsense that it is (and thus do the hard work for me), but I couldn't bring myself to comment on Cameron's latest wheeze.

And unsurprisingly unravel quickly it has:

And

So follows Cameron in a long line of Tories who in spirit is defined by the words of Labour MP Hugh Gaitskell, October 1962:

"...have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union."

Cameron's immigration announcement was always bollocks but he's not even good enough to disguise it very well. He is taking the concept of the Peter Principle to a whole new level. As a consequence, as Richard North notes, the rats are now deserting the sinking Tory ship.

As it stands Labour are more than likely to win the General Election in 2015 and we go through the whole charade again - as per Ed Milliband's recent article in The Sun:

And as a Labour Prime Minister, I will act to deal with people’s concerns. We know low-skill immigration has been too high and it should come down. We will put maximum controls on new countries joining the European Union.

Controls can only be put in place for a maximum of 7 years - Labour not quite lying but not telling the whole truth either. The 7 year limit is precisely the issue with Romanians and Bulgarians having their restrictions removed next year - their 7 year term is up.

Unsurprisingly another party had this policy of restricting immigration in 2011 (leaving unsaid that it was for only 7 years) - can you guess which one it was?

And so we go round in circles.

Weasel Words

Despite the lazy media's habit of portraying UKIP as a 'right-wing' threat to the Tories, Labour at least recognise the threat it also posses to them particularly on the vexed subject of immigration:

The Labour leader admits that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were “wrong” in government to dismiss the concerns of the public over levels of migration that were “too high”.

While there is “nothing wrong” with employing foreign staff, some companies recruit from overseas to undercut the wages of British-born workers, Mr Miliband says.

It's not the first time Miliband has broached this subject and apparently Labour are to lay out their immigration policy in detail tomorrow. Yet going by the report in the Telegraph unsurprisingly it's clear that for all the rhetoric nothing will substantially change:

This will mean “maximum controls” for eastern Europeans entering the European Union

So we have dog whistle politics using words in the same sentence like; "controls", "Eastern Europeans" and the "EU" but in reality it's the same policy of restrictions on non-EU citizens while not being able to do much regarding the free movement of EU citizens. No change, no choice and complete contempt.

There has to be another way, and fortunately there now is.

No Right To Ask

Below is the audio of Joyce Thacker's interview with the Today programme this morning on taking away children from Ukip foster carers. She reiterates, what I had heard on another BBC news interview, that she has "no right to ask what anyone's political dealings are". Which means - by admission - it has no bearing on the suitability of potential foster parents:

listen to ‘Council protected children from 'strong views'’ on Audioboo

"Choc Ice"

Racism connected with free speech is a subject I tend to stay away from on this blog, but the recent spat between a number of footballers on the issue of race and racism is a clear example of where we're going wrong in this country.

For the non football readers among my readers, English and Chelsea footballer John Terry was up in court recently for allegedly making the racist remark - f****** black, c***. It's with deep irony that the word which landed Terry before the courts was the one word I haven't removed - the word 'black'.

Nobody on the football field at the time heard the comment, even the player it was allegedly directed to. The trial only came about because of an off-duty copper who lip-read the comment on tv.

During the trial, at tax payers' expense, we subsequently had another English footballer; Rio Ferdinand - who understandably takes the issue of racism seriously - giving a running twitter account verdict of the 5 day trial, oblivious to the fact that Mr Terry is and was innocent and entitled to a fair trial.

When the verdict was returned, i.e. it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, Mr Ferdinand decided to endorse a racially-loaded term regarding the witness for the defence Mr Ashley Cole (who's black) 'choc ice. A term that is universally understood to mean 'black on the outside, white on the inside'. Unsurprisingly someone has complained:

A possible racist comment made against Chelsea footballer Ashley Cole is being investigated by Derbyshire Police.

A Twitter user, believed to be from Derbyshire, referred to Mr Cole as a "choc ice" on the social networking site over the weekend.

Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand then replied: "I hear you fella! Choc ice is classic hahahahahaha!!"

A Derbyshire Police spokeswoman said the force had received complaints "regarding alleged racist comments".

"These concerns will be fully investigated to establish whether any criminal offences have been committed," the spokeswoman added.

Obviously this brings up the legitimate criticism, or observation, of who draws the line with free speech and where to draw it. Once lines get drawn, anomalies appear left, right and centre. Be careful Mr Ferdinand for what you wish for - getting one of your own Twitter followers into trouble.

And it's precisely this culture that closes down debates such as immigration al la the excellent post from Witterings from Witney:

Challenges seem all the rage nowadays, what with Cameron receiving a hand delivered letter from the leader of a ‘political party’ (well, they consider themselves a political party hence my use of the term in inverted commas) challenging him to a debate on Britain’s relationship with ‘Europe’. Dan Hodges, Daily Telegraph, wishes to challenge anyone to a debate on the subject of immigration, but as one commentor – Davy – points out:

“You want a debate about immigration? Me too. Bring it on. Just as an observation, Dan, you’ve got the best part of sixty comments already and you haven’t engaged with any of them. If you say you want a debate, you’ve got one below. Step up, eh?”

And there we have another democratic failure when considering the state of our democracy. It is so easy for politicians to state that this country should remain in the EU as it is for ‘journalists’ to challenge anyone to a debate on immigration – and then to totally ignore the cries for a debate.

Mr Ferdinand defends himself by calling the usage of 'choc ice' a way of criticising someone of being fake - on those terms I would apply it to Dan Hodges - someone who pretends to want a debate on unlimited immigration but has absolutely no intention of following through with his 'wishes'...

Quotes Of The Day

From Tony Blair (who he?):

“I think most sensible people in Britain can see immigrants have made a great contribution to our country.”

At a stroke, he insults the core working class support of the Labour party who are most affected by immigration by overtly suggesting they're not 'sensible'. And:

"I would have been happy taking the European job as President of the EU".

Perhaps someone should remind Blair that he has absolutely no hope of that job...because it doesn't exist.

Empty Rhetoric

Newspapers, having clearly been briefed, are reporting that today Ed Milliband will give a speech about immigration in attempt to reposition Labour being on the side of working class voters' concerns.

Apparently:

“They are worried about the future. They want there to be good jobs, they want their communities to grow strong once again. And they worry about immigration,” he will say

“Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way. They are anxious about the future.”

In a move that makes the phrase 'stable doors and horses' seem inadequate, Ed Miliband will admit Labour's past mistakes on the issue. The crucial question though is what does he and Labour intend to do about it?

Well the short answer is nothing, and nor can he while we remain EU members. Thus we get feeble measures such as; 'restrictions' on countries joining under a new treaty (which can only apply for a maximum of 7 years), better enforcement of minimum wage and new measures to force medium and large employers to declare if they employ more than 25% of foreign workers.

So meaninglessness drivel that doesn't address the core problem. If we didn't know better we could have mistaken it for a Tory speech...oh wait, they have.

Meanwhile as they flap about delivering nothing, history is in the making on the European continent - rather soon, as Richard North highlights Britain's relationship with the EU is going to change significantly, and that change is likely to be defined by them not by us. And what do we hear from Labour and the Tories? Silence.

That Cameron Project

Above is a clip from the BBC Programme; This Week, which was broadcast last week. The discussion relates to the disgusting grooming case regarding vulnerable young girls in Rochdale which has been widely acknowledged as having a racist motive:

Tory MP Louise Mensch, who takes part in the discussion is a fully paid-up member of the Cameron project, so it is with some amusement to see her discomfort in the clip above (watch her stroppy crossed-arms stance half way through - or even Alan Johnson's discomfort as Louise speaks) as she tries to hold the 'Tory political correct' argument line in the face of the onslaught by Will Self, Alan Johnson and Charles Kennedy.

Clearly Cameron and "Louise (I'm looking forward to climbing the greasy pole) Mensch" have got themselves on the wrong side of public opinion regarding crime and immigration as I noted here. But not that stops Cameron et al....they're far more worried about what the Guardian says than anyone else.

Still, the sight of a Tory being attacked from the right by essentially Labour figures is rather surreal, to say the least.

Inevitable

Economic problems + Mass Immigration + Removal of people's democracy = A move to extremist parties:

A neo-Nazi party who advocate forcing immigrants into work camps and planting landmines along the border are today savouring unprecedented political success in Greece.

Golden Dawn party will enter parliament with 7 per cent of the vote after the electorate shunned the main parties who they blame for plunging the nation into austerity.

The obscure extreme-right group are one of the biggest winners in a poll which has plunged Greece into a fresh political crisis.

As UKK41 says it's depressing. It's also inevitable:

Asked if he worries about that prospect, Thomas Nikolaou, an unemployed mathematics professor, who until now backed Pasok, said: 

“This trick didn’t work now and it won’t work in the future. I voted for (the extreme right) Golden Dawn (party). I lost my job, I can’t feed my family and I have nothing else to lose. The only power I have is my vote and I will give it again to those who say no to this madness. 

“All I can think of is revenge against the politicians who destroyed my life and millions of others.”

So it's with deep irony that by trying to eliminate the nation state and democracy the EU will encourage precisely the very situtation it wanted to prevent.

Not Banning The Burka?

Before the last election one of UKIP's manifesto policies was to ban the burka, it was a controversial move and one policy I fundamentally disagreed with (though I understood some of the concerns behind the move). I vented my frustrations on here at the time.

Now it appears, during a twitter exchange, that the policy has been dropped. No official announcement of course but good news if true. Anyway, it gives me an excuse to post one of my favourite Matt cartoons. Just priceless:

British Jobs For British Workers?

Although he didn't explictly say it, Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith has adopted Gordon Brown's phrase; of "British jobs for British workers". It's a reluctant acknowledgment of the most important issue facing this country as far as the voters are concerned - immigration. It is also an example of how pathetically helpless our MPs really are.

Firstly Iain Duncan Smith accepts that immigration is an issue:

While stressing that immigration plays a vital role in British society, he will argue that many immigrants end up doing jobs that could easily be done by British citizens.

But of course the elephant in the room regarding immigration is that controls on EU citizens coming to this country are not possible; a point even the presenters this morning on BBC Breakfast acknowledged. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, David Frost, says (my emphasis):

"They expect young people to come forward to them who are able to read, to write, to be able to communicate and have a strong work ethic," he said. "Too often that is not the case and there is a stream of highly able Eastern European migrants who are able to fill those jobs. They are skilled, they speak good English and, more importantly, they want to work."

So will IDS as part of his radical reform of the welfare system advocate withdrawal from the EU that would return control back to us regarding our own borders? I think we all know the answer to that question. Another Tory pretending that we govern our own country.

Then following on from that, effectively - IDS, a Minister of State is telling companies to break the law by discriminating against foreign workers in favour of British workers; a direct breach of the Equality Act.

Yet again we have more empty rhetoric from the Tory party, when will their supporters learn? Exit from the EU and repealing the Equility Act are within the power of Tory Ministers and again they fail to rise to the challenge.

And what about IDS' boss - well he had better things to do today like running about in an Aston Villa football top.

Taking a leaf out of his mentor's book on 'being shallow is the new shallow' he thinks it's important to pretend to like football and we all know he doesn't really.

Presumably Cameron thinks that a Villa football strip is a perfect choice because they are not in the Home Counties but are instead based in a city with marginal constituencies. See look how 'working class' and 'down with the normal chap' he is?

Actually on reflection Villa is rather a symbolic choice for Cameron, probably not for reasons he would like. They are run by foreign owners, have delusions of grandeur (still thinking that they are a big team but aren't), are facing a challange for dominance by their upstart neighbours, have not won anything significant since the mid-90's and destroyed important parts of their hertitage to replace it with vapid and insipid new 'improvements'.

And even then I bet Cameron has no idea what the Holte End is.

Two Thirds Of Germans Now Eurosceptic

A Case about Bird Flu highlights a poll by Allensbach which shows that 67% of Germans now have little or no trust in the EU, indicating a dramatic loss of confidence in the project, and only a minority believe that the eurozone stability fund will save the euro currency.

Also today - ironically on Labour day - Germany's restrictions on free movement of workers, which were negotiated in 2004 when Eastern European countries joined the EU, hits the 7 year deadline and comes to an end. The Telegraph reports that the Germans are now bracing themselves for a influx of Polish workers on the scale that happened here in the UK:

Under European Union rules that come into force on Sunday, May 1, Germany will open its doors fully to jobseekers from Poland and other Eastern European nations for the first time, paving the way for a flood of cut-price carpenters, plumbers and other budget labour of the kind that swept Britain in 2004.

However, with German trade unions predicting that up to a million Poles may arrive in the first year alone, not everyone feels like welcoming the new arrivals from the other side of the River Oder.

Now Germany's moratorium is expiring - just as the global recession and last summer's Eurozone crash mean severe cuts in health, social service and welfare budgets in Europe's biggest economy.

That has fuelled a German swing against immigration in general, and a growing sense that a people which has long supported the EU project no longer gets a fair deal.

The deadline also applies to France and Italy - just what these countries need when they are already squealing about current problems in the Schengen area. Immigration and nationalism is now beginning to become an issue in a country which for very obvious historical reasons has avoided debate:

There was also rare criticism of Mrs Merkel from a senior member of her own centre-right party, Erika Steinbach, who warned that the CDU was seen as too left-wing on immigration, and that a charismatic politician could easily peel off voters to a new hard-right party.

Another renegade ex-CDU member, Rene Stadtkewitz, has already announced the creation of a right-wing Freedom Party similar to that of Geert Wilders in Holland.

Success for such a party would mark a decisive break with Germany's post war-liberal consensus, in which memories of Nazism have often inhibited frank discussion on nationalist issues.

It's all very well promoting the ideal of abolishing something as intrinsically important to the human condition as the nation state, but all that happens is it strongly provokes the very reaction you're trying to abolish.

Discrimination Is Discrimination

Campaigning today I encountered a voter who was rather angry - to say the least - about primarily immigration (no surprise there).

However what had specifically provoked her ire was the latest Unison National Executive Council Election ballot paper which she had received because she works as a civilian in the Police force. With her permission I scan the document here, here's the covering letter:


and here's the ballot paper:



So far so good, a ballot paper enclosed to democratically elect the Unison NEC. Nowt wrong with that you may think. So the source of her ire? Page four:


A special page to elect members based on their skin colour. This from the same union who have a dedicated section here to the Equality Act and still did not think that it went far enough:

The Equality Act passed in April 2010 brings together previous discrimination and equality law into one harmonised Act. UNISON welcomed this new law, although we remain concerned that in some areas it does not go far enough.

I've been a member of UKIP long enough to participate in electing 2 leaders and members of the UKIP NEC and everytime it has been a vote based on merit and rightly so.

As the owner of a small business if I came anywhere near the antics of Unison (which I never would) I would be locked up and then hung, drawn and quartered before you could scream 'racist'.

Why is Unison different (i.e. above the law)?

Cameron And Immigration

The papers this morning have clearly been briefed that Cameron is set to give his first speech on by far and away the number one topic at the last election - immigration. He's been in office for nearly a year now so why now? (A slight tangent here I do hope all my readers have now received their polling cards for next month's local elections).

Apparently the speech will be robust and I have been fortunate to see a preview of it. I reproduce it here in full, word for word so you can make your own minds up:

Immigration has imposed strains on some communities... blah blah blah....I recognise this and understand their concerns....blah blah blah...too high, so will introduce measures to reduce the levels....blah blah blah....these measures will apply for non-EU citizens.

Of course UK has no control over immigration from EU citizens and he knows it. He's hoping that the rest of us don't - that's the problem with stupid people they often assume others are as stupid as they are. People will know that Cameron's words are dishonest; they can see it for themselves all around them when the levels of immigration continues to be a problem.

And it looks like both the Mail and the Telegraph have also been briefed to hardly mention the EU aspect of it, if at all. It comes to something when it's left up to the BBC to mention the unmentionable which they did this morning on BBC Breakfast, so many times I lost count.

Update: I've just spotted that Nigel Farage gets the final word on the BBC site. Blimey I think I'm in shock:

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said it was a "good thing" Mr Cameron was recognising the impact immigration had had on communities across the country.

"But sadly there is not much he can do about it because the elephant in the room is the European Union and we have a total open border with all of them," he said.