QUOTE OF THE MONTH (bonus)

Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don't seem to see this.

Doris Lessing (writer)

THE NEW LABOUR PROJECT

‘Socialist citizenship would offer more than a package of benefits. It would be founded upon people’s energy and confidence to take personal responsibility, to be agents of social change, to shoulder obligations to society, to give support to others, as well as to claim their individual rights. But individuality must be matched by a sense of community. The rights and needs we share in common are a prerequisite for people to have an equal chance to satisfy their individual aspirations. Socialist citizenship would be about people participating in a community together.’

Manifesto for New Times (Communist Party 1989)

‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we can live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’

New Labour’s Clause Four (1994)

When the Communist Party broke up in the early 1990s, some defected to the Greens, some formed a new group called the Democratic Left (which was very sympathetic to Labour), and others supported the Labour Party. As can be seen from the above 2 quotes, there is little difference between the New Labour Clause Four and the dying Communist Party Manifesto for New Times. The similar waffle can be interpreted and used to railroad through a whole host of politically correct causes.

With the collapse of class war politics (the encouragement of working class hostility towards the middle and upper classes), both the communists and Labour were headed in the same direction. The adoption of race war politics (the encouragement of non-white hostility towards white people), extremist feminism, and militant gay rights - as well as a general attack on British society as a whole, and English society in particular.

BRIAN SEDGEMORE

The recently defecting Brian Sedgemore, for whom New Labour is now beyond the pale, has had a few things to say about his former colleagues. On the day of his defection to the Liberal Democrats he had an article published in the Independent. This is what he had to say about Tony Blair:

‘Blair is shameless. He used to act at school and he uses that talent now; every time he speaks, for example, at the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, you can here someone saying, “Cue broken voice, quivering lips, dropped shoulder, tear in left eye”.

Blair used to be a constituent of mine and run around saying, “We have got to get Tony Benn elected”. He stood for secretary for the local party. He got old ladies in the cars to vote for him, and he lost. It was only later when he used Mandelson that he began to learn the organisational skills he used to take over the party and surrounded himself with secondraters or cronies’.

Not too many people were aware that Tony Blair was a Bennite in bygone days. This helps to explain the reason why he is so keen to promote the neo-communist politically correct agenda.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The Metropolitan Police is to hire a team of 24 ‘diversity advisers’ as a new ‘citizen focus’ squad to instruct the police on issues of race and gay rights. The advisers are to be paid £35,000 per annum. Once expenses and pensions are taken into account, the annual costs exceeds £1million.

The advisers will be recruited from independent advisory groups set up in response to the Macpherson report. In other words, they will be politically correct.

This is the latest initiative from Sir Ian Blair, the new police commissioner, who has long been a supporter of the gay lobby, and is known as Labour’s favourite cop.

A police spokesman said: ‘Citizen Focus Teams are part of the Diversity Directorate re-structuring to meet the new challenges in delivering policing to diverse communities’.

No doubt we will soon be hearing lots more about how institutionally racist the police are.

THE GENESIS OF COMMUNISM

Below are extracts from the ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in 1848.

The extracts have been chosen as being the most relevant to the 21st century. Large tracts of class war politics have been ignored.

It will be seen that so-called political correctness is really nothing more than communism. The attack on the family, Christianity and nationhood is communist based.

Labour’s, and for that matter the Conservative Party’s, willingness to undermine marriage, our Christian heritage and our nationhood is not some sort of enlightened, modern, sophisticated wisdom. It is bog-standard, unimaginative, clapped-out 19th century communism. It is an act of oppression – not tolerance.

The full Manifesto is as lacking in objectivity as it is oozing in hatred. It is the poisonous theory of the malevolent few. It is evil in its purest and most undisguised form. When Marx and Engels speak of the ‘forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions’, there should be no doubt that they are advocating violent revolution.

The only surprise is that so many, even today, give communism (aka Marxism) the slightest respect.

That is especially so since communism was responsible for the deaths of at least 100million people in the 20th century and is still responsible for mass murder to this day, as the tragedy of Zimbabwe demonstrates.

‘MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY’

PART ONE

‘In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.’



‘Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.’


PART TWO


‘The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.’



‘The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.’



‘In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.’



‘Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.’


PART THREE


‘As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the state? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.’

‘The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!’

ELECTION RIGGING

The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation has been caught out organising the heckling of Michael Howard during a speech.

The 3 hecklers were exposed after Conservative Party officials noticed a BBC camera with a specialist radio microphone, which was interfering with satellite transmission of the speech. The camera crew were filming 2 men and a woman who were shouting slogans such as: ‘Michael Howard is a liar’ and ‘You can only trust Tony Blair’ during the speech.

The hecklers, who were being paid by the BBC, were wearing BBC microphones and were being filmed for a documentary called The History of Heckling. The BBC have admitted the allegation is true. The other parties have not been subjected to anything similar.

It beggars belief that it did not occur to the BBC that they should not be manufacturing such a contrived news story, or that singling out the Conservatives might lead to allegations of bias. They are knowingly undermining the Conservative Party and helping Labour.

VOTE RIGGING

There are several constituencies in Yorkshire where there have been up to 15,000 postal ballot applications.

This is a very high number and will certainly affect the result. That fact is compounded by the distribution of postal ballot voting forms, which is now taking place, before the distribution of the election addresses.

Whereas voters might already know the broad political stance of the main parties, fringe parties are particularly adversely affected by this. It is a statistical fact that around 80% of those voting by postal ballot, do so within 24 hours of receiving their ballot papers. These people will be voting in ignorance of those election addresses which have yet to be delivered.

All campaigning between now and 5 May will be wasted for those who have already voted. This is a retrograde step when the aim should be to have an informed debate.

Fringe parties should not be discriminated against by the voting system in this way, and it is yet another example of how Labour has rigged the vote.

IMMIGRATION

Following Tony Blair’s unconvincing interview with Jeremy Paxman, in which he was asked 20 times how many illegal immigrants were in this country, Blair himself made a major speech about immigration in Dover on Friday, assuring us that everything was under control.

This is from a man who claims not to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country despite being in receipt of a report which had set the figure at 500,000 plus dependants. The assumptions on which the report was based are not considered as suitable even by the report’s author, Professor Salt. The English Rights Campaign has tended to use the figure as being up to 1m, as the number of illegal immigrants in the UK, and will continue to do so. Labour has continually sought to fiddle the figures in order to understate the problem and one should assume that the report’s figures were so fiddled.

Tony Blair’s Friday speech was matched by a 1pm news report by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation which was fully supportive of the Labour line and in favour of mass immigration. Even by the BBC’s standards, it is fair to say that they excelled themselves.

The report started with a picture of Dover which, we were told, ‘for centuries’ had been the sight greeting immigrants moving to Britain. This implies that there has always been mass immigration into the UK, and that the UK has always been an immigration country - when in fact it has always been an emigration country up until the mid-20th century. Then the BBC had a spokesman from an immigrant pressure group telling us how the immigration debate tended to stir up racism, and then an economist telling us how we needed immigrants for economic reasons and that the faster the economy grew, then the more immigrants we needed. It would seem that the current levels of immigration might not be enough!

Given that there are millions of people registered as either unemployed or on incapacity benefit, there are absolutely no economic reasons for mass immigration into the UK at all. There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job. There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.

But the BBC did not see fit to allow anyone to answer the fatuous claims made by the immigration lobby.

As if that was not bad enough, up pops Digby Jones of the corporatist CBI to make a fool of himself on the Channel Four news on Friday night too. According to the CBI, there were skills shortages and the greater the number of immigrants, the greater the level of economic growth. Digby Jones complained about the Conservative immigration proposals and claimed that big business wanted mass immigration.

This is at a time when manufacturing industry has lost 1million jobs since Labour came to office, including 93,000 jobs lost last year alone. Recently, Rover has closed down, which will not only affect those employed by the company, but suppliers as well.

It might be recalled that the CBI was half-hearted about union reforms in the 1980s and was a firm advocate of the UK’s continued membership of the ERM, even when the whole system was collapsing and the UK had been pushed into the worst recession since the 1930s. Digby Jones was talking complete clap-trap although he has no doubt thoroughly ingratiated himself with Labour.

Meanwhile, Michael Howard was himself interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Friday. It is fair to say that he put up a spirited performance, aided by the timely drawing of 2 pieces of paper out of his hip and breast pockets to support his stance on immigration.

But the stark fact remains that the Conservative immigration proposals are not credible. They are dependent on the involvement of the UN, who have already refused to be so involved, and on some third world countries setting up asylum centres to process asylum applications, when no such countries have volunteered for this thankless task. Then there is the problem of the fact that anyone granted asylum in other EU countries has an automatic right of entry into the UK as a result of our membership of the EU.

The Conservatives seem to be hoping that the electorate will not see through these flaws. We will see on 5 May whether or not that assumption is correct.

ST GEORGE'S DAY

There is no doubt, that this year St George’s Day has received more recognition than for a long time. There was a number of English flags on display - in windows, on flagpoles, on cars, and on baseball caps.

Car horns were being tooted at those who were displaying the English flag.

This might seem a small thing. But it is the start of the awakening of English nationhood.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The Muslim Council of Britain has issued 10 points which it recommends Muslims should consider and use to question candidates before voting in the general election:

1. Muslims suffer discrimination on the basis of religion. Will you support measures to protect faith groups?
2. Will you support legislation to outlaw religious hatred?
3. Anti-terror laws discriminate against Muslims. Will you ensure no one loses their liberty without due process of law?
4. Some countries such as Israel and India flout UN resolutions. Will your foreign policy be just and fair?
5. The invasion of Iraq was against the wishes of half the country. Will you support withdrawal of British forces?
6. Will you help provide equal opportunities and end social exclusion of Muslims?
7. Muslim pupils are under-achieving in state schools. Will you support state funding of Muslim schools?
8. What will your party do to achieve more political and other representation of the 1.6million British Muslims?
9. Will you ensure debates on moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia are heard?
10. Immigrants contribute to prosperity. What will you do to ensure the immigration debate does not fuel racism?

The Muslim Council’s 10 points are not enough for a section of the more militant Muslims, who invaded the Regent’s Park mosque to disrupt the launch of the voting guide. These militants accused the Muslim Council of being ‘devils’ and much more. One fanatic shouted: ‘Islam is going to take over the UK, whether you like it or not’.

It is often the case that the fanatics make the biggest noise, but as Northern Ireland (as well as a host of other places) has shown, it is the more hardline and extremist elements that tend to rule the day.

Bearing this episode in mind, and looking at the 10 points, it is clear that the Muslim community has not integrated into British society and has formed a society within a society. The 10 points are littered with bald assertions which are untrue and which are pure race war politics.

This all demonstrates the need for an end to mass immigration.

ANGLOPHOBIA

Needless to say, in these politically correct times, it is all very exciting to have late pub opening hours for the Chinese new year, or St Patrick’s Day, or the Hindu festival of Diwali - but it is absolutely out of the question that a publican should have an extra hour of opening time for St George’s Day.

The landlord, Tony Bennett, who asked for such an extension for the Otter Pub in Thorpe Marriott near Norwich, had his application refused by local magistrates. The magistrates pronounced that there was nothing special about St George’s Day.

This is despite Mr Bennett producing evidence or hundreds of letters and emails supporting his application.

Previously Mr Bennett had been granted an extension of his opening hours to celebrate the Chinese new year without question.

Mr Bennett said: ‘St George’s Day has been celebrated for hundreds of years. It’s only in recent years that political correctness has allowed us to slip into not celebrating it. I’m a patriotic man who is proud of our country and wants to celebrate St George’s Day. I will not give up that fight. This is not the end of the campaign to have St George’s Day officially recognised’.

SCOTS RAJ

SCOTS RAJ

Below is a copy of an article which originally appeared in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times this Sunday:

‘‘Scots Raj’’ effect shows up in poll
Jason Allardyce
'SCOTTISH MPs should be banned from ministerial jobs in charge of English affairs, according to a poll of British voters by The Sunday Times.
More than two-thirds of those polled believe Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on laws that apply solely to England and almost 80% think too much public money is spent on Scotland.
The evidence of mounting concern among English voters follows Jeremy Paxman’s claims in The Sunday Times last month that England is being ruled by ““a Scottish Raj””. There were six Scots in the cabinet before the election was called —— Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Reid, Alistair Darling, Ian McCartney and Lord Falconer. The apparent anti-Scottish backlash among voters will have to be taken on board by whoever wins the election.
The Tory leader Michael Howard is committed to banning Scottish MPs from Commons votes on matters that have been devolved to Holyrood, but he has no plans to limit the role of Scots in the cabinet and has pledged to retain the Barnett formula, which means public spending in Scotland is 20% higher per head than in England.
The poll of nearly 1,500 voters, conducted last week, found that English concerns have hardened in recent months after the support of Scots MPs allowed Blair to force through unpopular plans for university top-up fees in English and Welsh universities.
English politicians and campaigners have also complained that high levels of funding from Westminster have allowed Scots to benefit from free personal care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees. Neither policy has been introduced in England.
A similar poll by YouGov in February last year found that 46% of voters were opposed to Scots MPs being in charge of English affairs. That figure has risen by 14 points to 60%.
The proportion who believe only English MPs should vote on purely English matters has risen three points to 70%.
Opposition to higher spending in Scotland —— designed to take account of the greater cost of providing public services to a more widely-dispersed population —— has risen from 60% to 76% over the same period.
Despite rising dissatisfaction with what many English voters see as Scots’’ undue influence in their affairs, people across Britain retain an attachment to the union. Almost 60% say they would prefer Scotland to remain within the UK.
So, let me get this right, only about 59%(?) of respondents, from throughout Britain, want Scotland to remain in the Union. It looks as though the English electorate are coming round to the same opinion as the SNP: the United Kingdom's constitution is a complete dog's breakfast, and it is rapidly becoming time to call the whole game a bogey. That does not sound like a very strong "attachment to the Union" to me.
Will Gordon Brown ever be Prime Minister? I doubt it very much. And John Reid's and Alastair Darling's swazzy southern jobs are on gey shooglie nails too.'

______________________________________________________
UPDATE:

Today's Sunday Times - Scotland has another article, elaborating on this poll. It was conducted by YouGov:

Powers of Scottish MPs could be curbed as England wakes up
Is it time for a backlash? ask Jason Allardyce and Kenny Farquharson
'It suggests an immediate danger for Tony Blair if he chooses to keep John Reid and Alistair Darling in charge of English departments or to promote others like Douglas Alexander, his ambitious junior foreign office minister.
So were the soothsayers right to warn that the biggest constitutional reforms in 300 years under new Labour, with the advent of devolution in Scotland and Wales, would stoke the flames of English nationalism? Are we finally witnessing the break up of Britain that Tam Dalyell described as an inevitable consequence? Some believe Tony Blair —— or Gordon Brown —— must confront the English question soon or risk a backlash from voters south of the border that could leave Labour’’s electoral prospects, if not the Union, in serious doubt.
Darren Foster, of the Campaign for an English Parliament, who believes the opinion poll accurately reflects a hardening of attitudes, says the English are becoming fed up with being treated as “second-class citizens”.
Foster talks about devolution as having created a “democratic deficit”, with controversial English policies imposed by Scots MPs only accountable to voters north of the border where such policies do not apply because they are devolved to Edinburgh.
“We believe the dominant presence of Scottish MPs at Westminster in Tony Blair’s government has contributed to the huge constitutional disparity between England and the other countries of the UK. It is a gross abuse to democratic accountability that the Secretaries of State for Health (Reid) and for Transport (Darling) are held by MPs who do not represent a constituency in the same country where their policies are delivered.”
Peter Kellner, the chairman of YouGov, believes a series of close votes in the Commons and Paxman’’s comments has focused minds. “I don’’t think the English go around in their conversations in pubs saying: ‘‘Isn’t it scandalous how many Scots there are in the cabinet,’’ but when it is drawn to their attention they get hacked off. If the Tories made a real play of how much money the Scots get they would be on to something. But they would have to give up on Scotland,” he said.
William Hague flirted with the idea while Tory leader but the message from Michael Howard is loud and clear: there will be no changes to the spending formula. He will come under pressure to abandon that position after the election, however.
Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative party’s vice chairman, is one of many senior Tory figures who believe England is not getting a fair deal.
Thus far Howard has been prepared only to sign up to a ban on Scots MPs from voting on English matters. The Campaign for an English Parliament believes matters could come to a head if, as expected, Gordon Brown succeeds Tony Blair as prime minister after the election.
Kellner disagrees, arguing that Brown would enjoy a honeymoon because, regardless of his nationality, British voters rate him as a stronger, more principled figure than Blair.
Gerry Hassan, a social and political commentator, believes the key factor will be the size of Labour’s majority. “If there is a Labour majority of 50 or under after the general election we get back into that murky, deep, dark water of having a Labour government relying on the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs.
“In those circumstances the Tories could have a majority in England. That is going to bring all these questions to the surface and the Labour party is not well-prepared for the consequences. Scotland has slipped off the agenda down south but after May 5 it is going to come back and constitutional politics will be centre stage.”'

IMMIGRATION/THE WAR ON TERROR

As the issue of immigration dominates the election once again, the seriousness of it is revealed not only by the issue itself, but also by the manner of the debate.

Once again, there are queues of so-called asylum seekers in Calais, receiving their free food and hot soup as the French police watch on. The French police are not bothered about this as they know that the immigrants are on their way to England and so the French will be rid of them. The UK remains a magnet for illegal immigration and the immigration controls remain ineffective, even at a time of the pretended war on terror.

It is ludicrous to speak of immigration controls, let alone of a war on terror, when ports (including Dover) do not have 24 hour staffing by immigration officials (as has been revealed this week). It would of course be very nice if the illegal immigrants entered the UK on a 9 to 5 basis, but unfortunately they are more liable to turn up when they know that the immigration officials have gone home.

As if that is not bad enough, it has also been revealed this week that illegal immigrants who are caught with false documents are allowed into the UK provided that they promise to report back to the authorities within 48 hours for questioning and possibly deportation. This rule was introduced to reduce the workload on the immigration officers and also as a result of the lack of secure accommodation in which to detain the illegal immigrants.

Of course it would be jolly decent of the illegal immigrants if they did report back, but (surprise, surprise) hardly any of them do!

The UK is an international laughing stock. It is no wonder the immigrants (and terrorists) still keep coming.

The inevitable consequences of the UK’s farce of an immigration policy have also been revealed this week. Not only in the coverage of the tragic murder of a Special Branch police officer, Stephen Oake, but also by the fact that his murderer, Kamel Bourgass, was an illegal immigrant who had twice been turned down for asylum and should have been deported several years ago. But no effort had been made to see that he was deported.

Bourgass is an Al Qaeda terrorist who had exploited the facilities of the infamous Finsbury Park Mosque. Even after he had had his asylum application rejected twice, and after he had commenced his terrorist activities, he was arrested by police for shoplifting. The police making the arrest suspected he was an illegal immigrant, knew that he was using aliases, and had contacted the Immigration Service who did nothing. Bourgass was fined for shoplifting and then walked free.

The flat in which he was finally arrested and in which the murder took place was provided by the Islington Council’s Asylum Team. The total cost of his illegal entry into the UK, including the trials of him and his co-defendants and the police investigation, is estimated to be in excess of £40million. The cost of keeping him in jail continues.

As for his 8 co-defendants, they were all so-called asylum seekers. It is now expected that they will all be granted asylum in this country because of the terrorist charges which were brought against them. They are likely to be able to successfully claim that if they were sent back from whence they came that their own governments might take a less lenient view of their activities than the UK, and so they should be allowed to stay here on human rights grounds. Many of the co-defendants were using false passports and aliases.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have had a kerfuffle after one of their candidates, Ed Matts, doctored a photograph of himself and Ann Widdecombe, changing the placards they were holding from being supportive of an attempt to prevent the deportation of an illegal immigrant family from Africa, to placards promoting ‘controlled immigration’ - which can mean just about anything. This demonstrates that large numbers of the Conservative Party remain in favour of mass immigration and are totally undependable as far as the immigration issue is concerned.

Meanwhile, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation hid the fact that Bourgass and his co-defendants were illegal immigrants, hid the details of their entry into the UK and, at least on one news bulletin, gave self-appointed Islamic activists the airtime in which to claim that Muslims were victims of discrimination. Given the circumstances, this is very much in bad taste, but is only to be expected from the BBC. Nevertheless, for the BBC to be peddling neo-communist politically correct propaganda can only help Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists.

VOTE RIGGING

Although Labour have been trying to rig the vote by making it possible for anyone to get hold of anyone’s postal ballot paper, they have adopted a different vote rigging trick so far as Armed Forces are concerned. Labour have seen fit to introduce a new system for service personnel to be able to vote by post.

Military personnel are more likely to vote Conservative.

Those who are overseas cannot vote by ballot box and are completely dependent upon postal votes. Previously, soldiers registered as a service voter when they joined up and would remain on the register until they left. But Labour has changed this and service voters now have to re-register every year. If they do not, then they will lose their right to vote.

To compound matters, the Ministry of Defence just happened to forget to distribute a leaflet telling service personnel of the changes and the new system. Although the leaflets are in the process of being distributed, it is now too late for service personnel who have not already registered to vote.

Half of the Army is currently on duty overseas.

The effect of this has been dramatic. In 2002 there were 140,000 people registered as service voters. By 2003 that figure had dropped to 49,000. In the Gosport constituency there were 4,700 registered as service voters in 2000, but this figure had fallen to only 470 by last year. In Chichester the figure had fallen from 483 to 22 over a five year period.

Labour has also reduced the period that those living abroad can vote from 20 to 15 years. These ex-patriots are also more likely to vote Conservative.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘They were going through yet another appeasement epidemic. It was based on the philosophy that you can have an easier and better life today if you side-step those issues requiring greater effort and maybe even sacrifice, in order to ensure a better future for your children. Let me say from my experience in politics that it is much easier to sell to voters a commodity which will make them comfortable as opposed to one which will require effort. There are two ingredients necessary to stimulate people to make a stand. First, a cause which motivates them: freedom to live according to their traditions, culture, religion, coupled with a determination to make a stand in order to protect these. Second, good leadership in order to mobilise and motivate. Many worthwhile and feasible causes have been lost through indifferent leadership. The gangsters, the extremists, never lack leadership or dedication. It is the decent, moderate person who, because of his reasonableness, is prepared to tolerate another point of view, who usually finds himself edged into the background in the rough and tumble and unscrupulousness of modern day politics. One of our most vital - indeed desperately urgent - tasks in life is to arouse moderate people when freedom and justice is under attack’.

Ian Smith (Prime Minister of Rhodesia)

Ian Smith was referring to the South Africans, who were the ones who forced the Rhodesians to capitulate to British demands. The South Africans believed that they could come to an understanding with the Black African nationalists and communists, by sacrificing Rhodesia in return for the neighbouring Black African states being prepared to tolerate the apartheid regime. Not surprisingly, the South Africans were wrong.

The Rhodesians did not operate an apartheid system and wanted a phased transition to Black majority rule (which was at the time, and still is, misrepresented). They declared UDI as Britain repeatedly reneged on a previous commitment to given them independence.

They had every reason to be cautious. The first British African colony to be granted independence was Ghana in 1957, and was heralded by the British as a great success. Within a couple of years, President Nkrumah had imposed a one-party dictatorship, half the members of parliament had been imprisoned, and the opposition leaders eliminated. The Ghanian economy was in ruins and the president had an external multi-million pound bank account. In 1966 he was ousted and was lucky to escape Ghana alive.

Nigeria was next to be granted independence in 1960. A bloody civil war between the Muslims and Christians soon broke out. Despite its oil, the economy descended into ruins and corruption was rife. Nigerian elections were marred by hundreds of murders in 1965. Despite all of this, at the Commonwealth conference in Lagos Harold Wilson spoke eloquently of the huge success of Nigeria’s independence, how well the other newly independent countries were proceeding, and how proud Britain was in the part it had played in bringing all this about. Within days of the conference ending, the Nigerian leader (and dictator), Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and many of his ministers were brutally murdered.

The Belgian Congo’s independence in 1960 immediately descended into civil war and tens of thousands were killed. The white settlers were often murdered, some were raped, and were forced to flee for their lives.

The independence of Tanzania, Zanzibar, Uganda and Kenya followed quickly and the experience was the same: the rapid establishment of one-party states, inter-tribal civil war, massacres, coups, and the exodus of the white settlers. On the independence of Zambia in 1964, President Kaunda soon made good his promise to turn the country into a one-party dictatorship - as most Marxists do.

Meanwhile Britain refused to give Rhodesia its independence, and allow the Rhodesians to solve their own problems themselves. Therefore the Rhodesians declared UDI.

The point Ian Smith makes in the quote is a good one. The UK is now faced with a Labour government, which is in the process of re-ordering society along the neo-communist politically correct lines, and which is coasting to victory in the general election - not least because they have rigged the vote.

There is no determined opposition to either Labour or political correctness. The case against mass immigration is not being properly put; likewise the case against membership of the EU, or the case against a nationalised NHS, or any sign of determination to reverse the tide of political correctness, or reverse the manner in which Labour has rigged the constitution in their own favour (ie by refusing to allow the English their own parliament, and the annual £10billion subsidy Scotland alone receives from the English).

All that the Tories are offering is their own version of socialism and the orderly management of decline.

THE LOONY LEFT

The politically correct have now decreed that Christian terminology is subject to their approval, and (surprise, surprise) they disapprove of reference to the ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ and also the reference to ‘the body of Christ’ and ‘the blood of Christ’ in Holy Communion.

They have decreed that the term Holy Ghost is a ‘trivial and spooky concept’ and say that the term ‘Holy Spirit’ should be used. They condemn the present terminology of Holy Communion as ‘almost cannibalistic’.

This all emanates from the Norfolk County Council and is a guide for teachers for use in schools.

The use of the term ‘Wailing Wall’ is also condemned and teachers are told to use the term ‘Western Wall’. Further diktats have been issued with regard to other religions including Islam and Hinduism.

VOTE RIGGING

As the furore of the impending rigged election continues, one aspect which many are prepared to ignore is the racial factor. Like it or not, the ethnic minorities are responsible for far more than their fair share of election fraud.

Ann Cryer MP has spoken of whole communities being pressured to vote in a particular way in her own constituency of Keighley. To her credit, she has been one of the strongest critics of postal voting, although she has admitted that she has kept quiet about the extent of what is going on for fear of being called a racist.

In June last year, she told of men with carrier bags of ballot papers and that ballot papers were rewritten if the vote had been cast the wrong way. She said: ‘People are going to homes, demanding that the voters there give up their ballot papers. The Asian community tend to stick together. If one of their elders comes to the door and asks them to do something, they by and large do it’.

Now it is revealed that the unions are getting involved. They are sending out postal ballot application forms to their members and have opened an office in Newcastle to process the forms en masse. Once again the distance between government and the ruling party is being blurred. The forms tell the recipients that unless they tick a box, their details will be passed on to Labour. For third parties to be handling such forms, when the postal ballot forms do not need to be sent to the applicant’s address, is wholly wrong.

This is all continuing despite the criticisms of Richard Mawrey QC, who sacked 6 Birmingham councillors due to the ‘massive, systematic and organised’ corruption by the local Labour party. He described the postal ballot system as ‘hopelessly insecure’ and that ‘the system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that it is wide open to fraud’.

Tony Blair has responded to the judge’s comments by saying: ‘I think it is important to point out the postal voting system is no more prone to fraud than any other’. That is the comment of a fool or a liar.

The role of the Electoral Commission is a disgrace. The commission has only been set up quite recently and is stuffed with Labour cronies. The commission has always been in favour of postal ballots, which presumably is why it has not roundly condemned the move to circumvent the ballot box. Yet even the commission had to recommend a halt in postal voting following the June elections last year.

It now emerges that a Cabinet committee, chaired by Peter Hain, decided that new safeguards were needed, but the plans for those safeguards were dropped when a survey revealed that Labour would lose votes if they were introduced.

This really is unacceptable. The government has introduced and is actively promoting widespread postal voting, in full knowledge that the election will be seriously affected by election fraud, and is prepared to tolerate that for their own political advantage.

The basis of our political system is that we are prepared to abide by the decisions made by government because that government has been democratically elected. If the government has been elected as a result of fraud, then the political stability of this country has been gravely undermined.

To his credit, John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Birmingham Yardley, has had the guts to call for the general election to be postponed. He has said that the election is ‘wide open to fraud’ and has made an application to the High Court for a judicial review.

We can only hope that he is successful. If not, then we will have a government which has been ‘elected’ as a result of a fraudulent postal ballot.

IMMIGRATION/SPANISH PRACTICES

Michael Howard’s recent announcement that he intends to regain control of Britain’s borders is all very well, but it is not enough to talk about stopping illegal workers, demanding bonds or proper embarkation controls - no matter how worthy these things are in themselves.

The fact is that this country’s membership of the EU allows immigrants to gain entry into the UK, by first gaining entry in another EU country. The UK has surrendered its veto on immigration.

The consequences of this have been highlighted by Spain, which recently legalised up to 1.5million illegal immigrants in Spain, who then automatically gain full entry to all other EU countries. ‘Immigration for a socialist government is not just a policy of public order or border controls’, said Consuelo Rumi, the Spanish Immigration Minister.

Now it has been revealed that more illegal immigrants are getting into Spain via the Canary Islands. Already, hundreds of Africans per month are making the trip, and this number is likely to grow given that the Spanish government has introduced a new policy.

After 40 days of having illegally entered the Canary Islands, the illegal immigrants are sent to Spain unless they reveal where they have come from (which they obviously do not). If they can then work, legally or illegally, for 6 months they will automatically gain work permits and residency papers.

At that point, they are free to move to any EU country, including the UK - for so long as the UK remains in the EU.

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

On the very same day that Labour recently pledged to create a million new homeowners, which was not meant to be an April Fool joke, the true nature of socialism was reported on the very same day.

1. Average take home pay had fallen due to the scale of recent tax increases.
2. Private sector pensions had lost 75% of their value since Labour came to power. The research by the Watson Wyatt actuaries revealed that those who retired before Labour’s first budget received roughly 4 times as much as those who saved the same amount but retire today. One of the main reasons for this was the £5billion per year stealth tax on private pensions introduced by Labour.
3. The cost of a place in a care home for the elderly has risen by a third in the last 5 years. Help the Aged revealed that some homes had increased charges by up to 28% in the last 12 months alone.
4. One million pensioners are likely to be forced to sell their homes in order to make ends meet. One of the reasons that many are forced to sell their homes is to pay for residential care - in England. Scotland, of course, in another example of “I’m All Right, Jock”, has free residential care for the elderly.

So what Labour gives with one hand, they take away - and more - with the other.

VOTE RIGGING

The general election is now underway. The democratic process used to be considered something sacrosanct and to be treated with respect. But not any more.

For this election is a rigged election. Quite apart from Labour trying to ensure permanent government over England by allowing Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote on English affairs, and quite apart from all the misuse of government monies and prestige to promote government policies - the outcome of this election will be influenced by postal voting.

As we know very well, postal voting is open to fraud. Indeed we have known this for some time, but the comments of Richard Mawrey QC have finally driven home the fact with such force that the Labour government can no longer ignore it.

The judge read out a government statement saying that they would not be bringing in any changes to deal with postal ballot fraud, because ‘the systems already in place to deal with allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working’.

The judge said: ‘Anyone who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising’. He condemned the government statement as demonstrating ‘a state not simply of complacency but of denial’. He said: ‘The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated’.

The case related to the systematic rigging of the postal votes in Birmingham by Labour activists. The judge had described the fraud as ‘widespread’ and said: ‘The system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that it’s wide open to fraud’.

In other parts of the country, the Liberal Democrats have also been involved in similar activities.

Criminal enquiries are currently underway in Reading, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire relating to theft of ballot papers, forgery, and personation (where ballot papers are filled in despite the voter being absent).

The Electoral Commission has stated: ‘We do not believe that electoral fraud is confined to Birmingham, to the Labour Party or, most importantly, to particular communities. This is a problem that we believe may be widespread in this country. We have seen cases recently in Blackburn, Guildford and Hackney involving people from very different backgrounds and each of the major parties. We dispute the view put around that there is little fraud because people are being charged.’

And so the fraud will influence the vote in only 4 weeks time. Nor is it only fraud that is the problem with postal voting. Intimidation and even death threats have been made. Migrants have been told that unless they voted Labour by postal vote, then they would be deported.

Record numbers of postal votes have been applied for in the forthcoming general election. In some areas the applications have tripled.

It is postal voting that is the problem. Labour are in favour of it as they believe that it will induce the more apathetic voters to vote. They hope to try and stop their own vote from collapsing, and so are prepared to compromise our democracy for their own political ends.

The Birmingham judgment coincides with the recent dirty tricks row in Watford. Russell Eagling received a phone call with a ‘robotic’ voice, telling him that it was phoning from Labour. It asked Mr Eagling as to his voting intentions, which he answered by pressing buttons on his phone. Mr Eagling, a Liberal Democrat supporter, replied ‘Labour’ out of curiosity. Two weeks later he received a letter and a postal voting form from Watford’s Labour MP, Claire Ward, whose majority in only 5,555.

The letter said: ‘If you have no desire to see the Tories win there is one thing you can do ... I’m enclosing a form for you to vote by post. It’s a certain way of making sure your vote counts’. Mr Eagling said: ‘It strikes me that they are breaking the rules. I am confident I received this letter as a result of the phone call’.

Automated phone calls are legal, only if they are used to gather information. They are banned under EU law to promote or sell a product, and this includes political parties.

Matthew Taylor, the Liberal Democrat MP, said: ‘Labour is acting no better than a crooked double-glazing salesman’.

Yet most disquieting of all is that Labour can obtain postal ballots for other people. The separation between state and the ruling political party no longer exists.

So the UK, and England in particular, will proceed into a rigged election. This is truly appalling.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The anti-motorist and ultra-politically correct chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrum (who was recently caused a brouhaha by referring to certain people a ‘queers’), has had a letter sent to all taxi firms in North Wales threatening them with ASBOs if they toot their horns to notify their customers that their cab has arrived.

The letter, actually written by Inspector Gary Ashton, states: ‘I seek your support in bringing about an immediate and permanent end to this practice’.

Any driver tooting his horn would be checked to see if he had been warned by the police before, if so, then the police would apply for an ASBO against him. To breach an ASBO carries a maximum of 5 years in prison.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The Big Lottery Fund, which has replaced the Community Fund amidst controversy relating to politically correct handouts, has in January and February made the following donations:

1. £235,000 to fund lawyers for asylum seekers.
2. £168,000 to the Kent Refugee Action Network, whose activists travel to Calais to distribute supplies to asylum seekers who are trying to smuggle themselves into the UK. The grant is to ‘provide a range of services to refugees to help them to integrate into a new way of life in the UK’.
3. £60,000 for Befriending Refugees and Asylum Seekers to pay for ‘drop in sessions for asylum seekers and refugees in Bolton’.
4. £60,000 to the Shpresa Programme in East London to ‘enable Albanian-speaking refugees, asylum seekers and migrants to settle fully and participate in society’.

The Big Lottery Fund is headed by Professor Sir Clive Booth, a recently knighted Labour supporter.

These grants are not acts of charity at all, but are political donations to deliberately promote mass immigration into the UK against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people, and against the national interest.

THE LOONY LEFT

Apparently it is now wrong to refer to children as being ‘gifted’ or ‘talented’.

Howard Cooper, the director of education for the Labour Wirral council, has issued a diktat in a report which condemns the terms: ‘The most significant amendment concerns terminology, with a movement away from term “gifted and talented” because of its suggestion of exclusiveness and relatively narrow scope. The recommended alternative term for the cohort of pupils for whom this document applies is “very able, with specific gifts and talents”, to be shortened for ease of use to “very able”.’

A cynic from the NAS/UWT teachers’ union, commented that: ‘Normally when they change the name of something, they are going to reduce funding for it.’

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The police in Cambridgeshire have circulated a CD to the gipsies/travellers urging them to contact the police if they feel that they have been discriminated against or suffered harassment.

The CD, which cost £10,000, is called ‘Del gavvers pukker-cheerus’, which is Romany for ‘Give police a chance’. In the CD, Superintendent Simon Edens tells the gipsies/travellers that the police had previously ‘got things badly wrong’ and that: ‘It horrified me that so many young people are being victimised and yet don’t have the confidence to come forward and I’m determined to change that’.

The CD was funded by the Home Office in order to tackle race crimes.

In the CD a Romany journalist interviews gipsies/travellers. He alleges that 68% of young gipsies/travellers have suffered racist discrimination. Sergeant Vic Gaspin, who specialises in hate crimes, points out that racially motivated offences attract harsher penalties and alleges that gipsies/travellers endure ‘disgusting and offensive’ abuse on ‘a daily basis’. He tells the gipsies/travellers: ‘Anyone who assaults you because of your ethnic background - from a push or shove up to GBH - these levels of assault can be classified as racially aggravated’.

Cambridgeshire includes the village of Cottenham, where gipsies/travellers have set up a large illegal site in breach of the planning law.

In the CD Superintendent Edens says: ‘We are not the police for the majority, we are everybody’s police’.

It is quite clear that the police no longer represent the majority on a range of issues.

ETHNIC CLEANSING

The BBC has been accused of racial discrimination in their selection of a new presenter for the Blue Peter programme.

Producers have been accused of wanting to appoint someone of Celtic origin and only placed advertisements in Northern Irish and Scottish newspapers, as well as Disability Now and The Stage magazines. English newspapers were excluded.

The BBC ultimately appointed Zoe Salmon, from Northern Ireland.

The BBC are denying the allegations and say that they also used agents and talent scouts.

TORY SOCIALISM

Far from opposing the socialist concept of the nationalisation of the family, the Conservatives have decided to try and convince the voters that their own version of it is preferable to the Labour version.

To that end, Michael Howard has announced that the Conservatives will introduce more generous welfare payments to young mothers . This will include payments to the relatives of young mothers who go out to work of up to £50 per week per child who they look after.

Labour insist that the children are looked after only by state-registered child minders.

The Conservatives also intend to introduce childcare ‘refresher’ courses for grandparents who want to look after other people’s children, and will also continue the Labour plans to provide 8am to 6pm after-school clubs where parents can leave their children. Sports centres and church halls would also be made available to take over the care of children under the Conservative proposals.

The Conservatives also intend to offer grants to businesses which set up creches.

All of this is despite the repeated evidence that mothers prefer to bring up their own children and that they are forced out to work due to punitive levels of tax on the family.

Quite why the Conservatives believe that their own vision of a socialist state is preferable to the Labour vision is unknown.