IMMIGRATION

New rules which make it harder for foreigners to marry in register offices have led to a fall of up to 60% in the number of weddings in some parts of London. The scale of the fall indicates that as many as 18,000 sham marriages had been taking place in London alone each year.

The purpose of the sham marriages is to exploit the immigration rules and allow immigrants to stay in the UK. Once married the immigrants are able to claim full residency rights. Fixers have been able to charge up to £5,000 to arrange a sham marriage.

Meanwhile it has recently been reported that, at the current level of deportations, it will take 21 years to return all failed asylum seekers to their own countries. This is based on the government’s conservative estimates. How long it would take to deport all illegal immigrants is unknown.

So long as illegal immigrants know that they will not be deported, they will keep on coming

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Following Charles Clarke’s recent announcement that he wished to reduce red-tape affecting the police, comes the announcement that the Metropolitan Police Authority’s Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board (surprise, surprise) have drawn up plans to require police to carry out ‘faith monitoring’.

This would require those who are stopped and searched to be questioned about their religion. This is supposed to be to a response to a alleged Muslim concerns that they are being unfairly targeted under the anti-terrorism laws.

Quite how the politically correct sophisticates believe the police can fight the war on terror against the Muslim extremists of Al Qaeda without stopping Muslims is unknown, nor is it known what will be made of those who claim to be Jedi Knights.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (bonus)

‘With this constitution, democracy in Europe will be dead. Completely dead! You know, in Brussels they never use the word “democracy”, they use the word “governance”. They don’t use the word “people”, they use the phrase “population ratios”.

So the people of France and of Britain are just “population ratios” to be governed by technocratic bureaucrats and the lobby groups who control the European Parliament. You British, and we French, will be reduced to mere provinces in a superstate, which is completely at odds with what people actually want.

These bureaucrats want to create a Kholkoz (Soviet Collective Farm) Europe where everyone has the same laws, the same values, all sleeping together in the same bed whether we like it or not. It will never work. What started as a dream is ending in a nightmare.’

Jacques Myard (French Gaullist MP)

RACE WAR POLITICS

The Big Lottery Fund has distributed £714,686 to two asylum seeker organisations. This is one third of the money distributed in the latest round of grants.

Student Action for Refugees was awarded £428, 498 while a Children’s Society scheme was given £286,188.

Student Action for Refugees encourages students to write to MPs and newspapers in a campaign to influence public opinion. This is simply political campaigning.

The replacement of the previous Community Fund with the new Big Lottery Fund has not solved the problem of the neo-communist politically correct using lottery money to promote their own pet issues. It is the composition of those who control these lottery organisations that needs looking at.

THE NHS

It has recently been revealed that Thomas Cook are now offering ‘sun and surgery’ package deals to India for those who need hospital treatment.

The holidays include flights, operations, a stay in a private hospital and time for recuperation on the beach afterwards. Standards in many Indian private hospitals is higher than in the UK’s ‘Third World NHS’. The package deals are expected to cost between £1,500 and £8,000 depending upon the treatment required.

The holidays are being test marketed in the UK first, as it is expected that the British will be more interested as many are fed up of being stuck on a waiting list, or waiting to be put on a waiting list.

Around 150,000 people visited India for hospital treatment last year, including 400 from the UK. The cost of such treatment is much cheaper in India. Open heart surgery costs roughly £6,000 in Bombay compared to £30,000 in the UK.

Patients can expect their own private room, which is cleaned twice a day. The rooms have cable television showing programmes in English and dieticians will prepare menu options.

Meanwhile, it has been also revealed that 40% of foreign nurses in the UK are considering moving abroad in order to get better pay and working conditions. Many have only come to the UK as a stepping stone to a better life elsewhere.

Last year 13,000, 50% of the all the new nurses, were recruited from abroad.

This shows the falsity of the claim that the recruitment of third world nurses is necessary to solve the lack of training of nurses in the UK. Other EU countries do not have any problem with training, recruitment or retention of their own nurses. It is only the UK, with its nationalised NHS, where there is a problem.

If the government were genuine about wanting to help the sick in the UK and the third world, then they would denationalise the NHS and be prepared to consider using the much cheaper foreign hospitals to treat our patients. This would stop the drain of much needed nurses from the third world, provide much needed revenue for the third world, and stop one source of mass immigration into the UK.

Labour, however, much prefers to grandstand about issues such as ‘fair trade’ and promote mass immigration as a part of their obsession with race war politics.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

The subversion of the British constitution, culminating in the recent rigged general election, has been the aim of the Labour project since before Tony Blair took office in 1997. What is so surprising is the Tories complicity in that subversion when it was to their own manifest disadvantage.

But in many ways, this is merely the chickens coming home to roast. The problem with the Conservative Party is not recent. It has existed since the Second World War, if not before.

The Tories have never really opposed socialism. They have never really been willing to present the moral and technical arguments against socialism. Instead, they have preferred to present their own watered-down version of it.

For very many years, the Tories implemented wage controls, price controls, printed money, had beer and sandwiches with union barons, and tried to run nationalised industries just as Labour would do. Only they believed that they could do it better.

In the 1970s, as Heath blundered into his own bout of high spending, money-printing socialism, the ratchet principle was identified. Every time Labour took office they would move the country closer to a full socialist state. Yet when the Tories took office, they were never willing to reverse that trend. Instead the country merely had a breathing space before Labour took office again and the shift towards a socialist state continued.

Whenever Labour took office, the Tories always knew that Labour’s commitment to nationalisation and Clause 4 of its constitution would inexorably lead to economic catastrophe. At which point, inflation rocketed, the IMF would be called in, or major cuts in government spending would be implemented - often accompanied with widespread strikes and work to rules etc.

Inevitably, Labour would then lose the following general election and the Tories would take power once again. All the Tories had to do was sit back and await the inevitable economic disaster.

But then there was a change. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the communist satellite states across eastern Europe, culminating with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union itself, and the cumulative effect of successive election defeats by Labour, Labour ditched Clause 4, abandoned the economic aspects of socialism such as nationalisation, and repackaged itself as New Labour. A combination of a tolerance of capitalism with a concentration on political correctness in all its neo-communist glory.

New Labour was the product of a major realignment on the left of British politics, which involved the launch and collapse of the SDP, the purge of Militant Tendency within Labour, and the collapse of the Communist Party. This also affected the centre of British politics with the merger of the SDP with the Liberal Party.

On the right of British politics, there had been the emergence of the so-called New Right in the 1970s, which evolved into Thatcherism. This was basically economic liberalism (free markets, free trade etc), with a particular emphasis on monetarism. Monetarism was the answer to Keynesianism and the solution to inflation. All of this was hotly debated at the time and it is easy to forget the impact that monetarism had, the extent of the intellectual differences, and the scale of the fierce political debate which eventually propelled Margaret Thatcher into office.

There is no such political debate about any political issue now. There is little difference between in principle between Labour and the Tories. The Tories are totally unwilling to oppose Labour on an ideological level. That is the reason why they are continuing to lose elections.

The impact of Thatcherism and the collapse of communism forced the realignment on the left of British politics. The impact of New Labour has not forced a realignment on the right of British politics, which is still monopolised by the Conservative Party. It is true that UKIP did well in the EU elections last year, but that has been a fleeting event. UKIP is a single issue party and is as equally committed to political correctness as are the Tories.

The Tories still believe that the reason that they have not won a general election recently is because they are perceived as not being nice, and that if they show how nice they are then they will win. They are afraid as being seen as the ‘nasty party’ - as defined by the neo-communist politically correct.

The Tories still do not understand that it was their dabbling with socialism which led to their demise. The sight of Norman Lamont announcing the UK’s exit from the ERM, after all the lies we had been told that membership of the ERM was essential for this country’s prosperity. All the unemployment, the negative equity, the bankruptcies, repossessions, massive tax increases, and general sacrifice of the national interest meant nothing to the Tories. It was all water off a duck’s back.

It was the Tories’ commitment to the EU and their ever increasing commitment to socialism that was the reason for their ejection from office (Cool Britannia, the Millennium Dome, and the nationalisation of the family were all Tory initiatives - to name but a few).

The Tories’ response to New Labour has been to adopt their own version of political correctness, support mass immigration, support postal ballots, support devolution, and they have not even objected to the scandalous failure of the Boundary Commission to do its job properly despite the obvious electoral consequences. Yet all of these matters strengthen Labour’s grip on power.

Labour has reduced the number of Scottish MPs at this election. But not by enough for even a British parliament. English constituencies have an electorate of around 66,000 to 70,000. There are exceptions and some have more and some less. Labour held constituencies tend to have fewer electors which is to their advantage. But even after the boundary changes in Scotland, Scotland still has constituencies such as Na H-Eileanan An Iar, which has an electorate of only 21,576, or Orkney and Shetland, which has an electorate of 33,048.

Wales has also benefited from this scandal. Ceredigion has an electorate of only 53,493. Clwyd South and Clwyd West have electorates of only 52,353 and 55,642 respectively.

These are only examples and not a complete analysis. It is agreed, even by Labour, that the failure to properly update the constituency boundaries works in their favour. This scandal needs to be properly addressed urgently. The proposed boundary changes as they currently stand will still leave Labour with a distinct advantage.

Of course, all the Scottish and Welsh MPs still vote on English affairs. Labour lost the general election in England and is relying on its Scottish and Welsh MPs to enable it to outvote the English. Scottish MPs for other parties (including their nationalist parties) are also socialist.

The Tories are still trying to play Labour’s game and win votes in Scotland and Wales, despite having only 3 Welsh MPs and only 1 Scottish MP. The Tories are more than happy to sell out the English in that objective, as Oliver Letwin was quite open about in his letter extolling the virtues of the Barnett Formula and how the Tories intended to add on a block grant as well to give away even more English money.

Of course, there are many Scottish Tory refugees sitting as Conservative MPs in English constituencies. These MPs have no reason to end their own political careers by advocating an English parliament. They are happy with the devolution settlement and the end of genuine democracy in England.

But they have failed to win elections in Scotland and Wales and will continue to fail. The manner of devolution and the manner of the funding of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments is a perfect breeding ground for socialism.

It has always been a hallmark of socialism that someone else should pay. That there are groups in society who are oppressed and that it is the role of the government to tax and expropriate property from the oppressors and give it to the oppressed (after taking their own cut first, of course).

Do you see that chap over there with a Rolls Royce? Well, he has a Rolls Royce and you do not, so you can be subsidised at his expense. Do you see that women with a fur coat? Well, if that fur coat had been redistributed then you would be better off. Did you see what happened to Mel Gibson in that film Braveheart? By God! Do not even hesitate! You set up shop with a new £400million parliament and send the English the bill, and a further £10billion per year for good measure.

It has recently been revealed that public spending in Wales is 60% of local GDP, and also in the North East of England (where Labour tried to win a referendum on regionalisation). In Scotland the figure is similar. This is comparable to Eastern European countries under communism.

Labour is looting England and using the money to buy votes in Scotland and Wales, and then those bought Scottish and Welsh MPs are trooping south to ensure that Labour remains in power in England. This is a vicious circle which is further exacerbated by the scale of mass immigration.

Recent figures show that 140,795 immigrants became British citizens last year. This is 4 times the number as when Labour came to office. Since 1997, Labour has given British citizenship to more than 700,000 foreigners. British passports are being dished out as if they were nothing more than confetti.

At this rate there will be at another 600,000 British passports issued to foreigners before the next general election and possibly as many as 700,000 (depending on the timing of the election). The overwhelming majority of immigrants who vote, vote for a left wing party, mostly Labour.

Labour plans to ultimately turn the English into a racial minority in their own country.

But there is a spanner in the works. The English are starting to wake up to what is happening. They have always been opposed to mass immigration (as are a majority of the non-white population as well) and are angry at the anomaly of the West Lothian Question and being dictated to by Scottish and Welsh. They are currently less aware of the Barnett Formula and the unjustified subsidy to Scotland and Wales, but it is only a question of time before that too impacts upon the English national consciousness.

The creation of an English parliament will end Labour rule in England. Labour know this. It is their Achilles heel. That is why they will fight tooth and nail to prevent the creation of such a parliament.

Not only would an English parliament affect Labour in England, but when the Scots and Welsh have to pay their own bills for a change, then Labour will find that its high-spending vote-buying ways in those countries will be under threat as well.

An English parliament is the key issue in British politics.

The English need a new political party to represent their own interests, and put the English on an equal footing with the Scottish and Welsh. The Scots and the Welsh have their own national parties (the SNP and Plaid Cymru) and the English too now need their own party.

The Tories are a complete washout. They have betrayed the English for far too long.

RACE WAR POLITICS

Islamic extremists chanted for the death of President Bush, and burnt both the US flag and a cross in a protest held by Omar Bakri Mohammed last Friday. At the protest, Bakri called for a Jihad against the West.

Roughly 250 extremists chanted ‘Bomb New York’ and ‘Kill George Bush’ as well as praising Osama Bin Laden and claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been beheading kidnap victims in Iraq, would be soon active in the UK - chanting: ‘USA watch your back, Osama is coming back’ and ‘UK you will pay, Zarqawi is on his way’.

The protest had been held in response to the purported flushing of the a copy of the Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. The story of this toilet flushing has already been withdrawn as unreliable and it is no excuse for the kind of hysteria the report has caused.

One protester shouted: ‘The day of judgement is coming and we will give you your rights by the sword of Allah’.

Bakri announced: ‘It’s about time for the whole world to realise Islam is the truth. The giant of the Islamic state is going to rise again, it is only a matter of time before shariah (Islamic law) is implemented. Go home and be part of the global struggle, the global jihad’.

Bakri, a Syrian, came to the UK and was allowed to stay by the Tories after he had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia for his extremist views. He is currently negotiating the purchase of a top of the range people carrier, which will be paid for by the taxpayer.

THE ONE PARTY STATE

Labour has now created so many Labour Nouveau Toffs that it is now the largest party in the House of Lords. As if that is not enough, Labour is also now planning to limit the ability of the Upper House to delay legislation for up to a year.

Lord Falkener has stated that in future, the House of Lords will only be able to delay legislation for up to 60 days.

The UK is increasingly starting to resemble a one party state, where all government institutions are enveloped and controlled by the ruling party for the benefit of the ruling party. The constitution is altered and manipulated for the benefit of the ruling party, as is the voting system.

Labour further plans to remove the remaining hereditary peers. Labour’s election manifesto promised a free vote on the future composition of the Upper House.

It is the latest batch of Nouveau Toffs that has given Labour its dominance. This batch, 16 Labour, and only 6 Tory and 6 Liberal Democrats, includes the controversial Andrew Adonis. There is no justification at all for Labour to be creating so many new peers, nor such a disproportionate number of Labour peers.

It is ironic that former Marxists, such as Neil Kinnock, have taken so well to being made lords. Their real complaint about the House of Lords was not the lack of democracy, but the fact that its hereditary status meant that they were not able to get in on the act.

But now they can literally lord it over us themselves.

They can of course comfort themselves that the reason they are lords is not because they inherited a title, but because they are so clever and important.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the extremist Muslim cleric known as the Tottenham Ayatollah, is planning to buy a £31,000 Toyota Previa people carrier.

The Syrian asylum seeker, who is under investigation by the anti-terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police, is expected to use his disability allowance to cover the cost of a lease of the vehicle, which he wants to be fully equipped with all the mod cons such as satellite navigation, leather upholstery, air conditioning and cruise control. He has managed to negotiate a discount bringing the price down to £28,500.

Bakri has already received £275,000 in benefits for himself, his wife and seven children, with whom he shares a £200,000 home in London. He came to the UK in 1986 when he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia for his extremist views. He has urged Muslims to fight for Islam and urged them to commit benefit fraud to fund a holy war.

Bakri said: ‘I am not doing anything illegal. I am entitled to the same benefits all disabled people get’.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

It has recently been revealed that Labour are spending £1.9billion per annum on management consultants.

This has been so lucrative to the management consultants that some ‘experts’ are earning more than £2,000 per day.

Moreover, the £1.9billion figure is certainly an underestimate, given that it has been compiled from the Management Consultancies Association which only represents 65% of consultants. The consultants income has almost doubled within the last 5 years.

This is at a time when Labour intend to reduce the civil service by 100,000 to try and save £3billion. In previous times, the civil service was expected to manage itself and its departments without management consultants.

With the impending launch of ID cards and a new IT system for the NHS, it is expected that there will be even more consultancy spending.

Meanwhile, it has been revealed that the amount that the government has spent on PR and advertising has trebled since Labour came to power and is expected to be as much as £300million this year.

TO THE GRAVE

A recent consultation document from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that ‘age discrimination may be appropriate’ if it is deemed that a patient may be too old to reap the benefits of treatment.

This is not the first time that the NHS has advocated the denial of treatment to older people. NICE has also recommended that anti-dementia drugs should not be allowed on the NHS.

However, NICE says that there should be no discrimination against lifestyle illnesses such as smoking related disease, poor diet, or HIV.

It is appalling that those who have spent their whole lives paying taxes in the belief that they would receive medical care when they need it, find themselves denied that treatment to save the NHS money.

In a nationalised NHS, older people are expendable.

THE FRINGE EFFECT

The Bruges Group has issued the following press release:

‘The incredible, untold story of the general election is the effect that UKIP (and to a lesser extent Veritas) has had on the outcome. Overall, the combined votes of these two parties affected the outcome of 27 seats which might have otherwise gone to the Conservatives.

Of these 18 are held by Labour and if the Conservatives had won them the government would have had an overall majority of 30 instead of the 66 they actually have. Also the Conservatives would have 224 seats instead of 197. Liberal Democrat gains would have been reduced to a mere two.

The seats are as follows:

- Battersea (Lab hold) Majority: 163 - UKIP: 333
- Burton (Lab hold) Majority: 1,421  UKIP plus Veritas: 1,825
- Carshalton & Wallington (LD hold) Majority: 1,068 - UKIP: 1,111
- Cornwall North (LD hold) Majority: 3,076 - UKIP plus Veritas: 3,387
- Crawley (Lab Hold) Majority 37 - UKIP 935
- Dartford (Lab hold) Majority 706 - UKIP: 1,407
- Eastleigh (LD Hold) Chris Huhne Majority: 568 - UKIP: 1,669
- Gillingham (Lab hold) Majority 254 - UKIP 1,191
- Harlow (Lab hold) Majority 97 - UKIP plus Veritas 1922
- Hereford (Lab hold) Majority: 962 - UKIP: 1,030
- High Peak (Lab hold) Majority: 735  UKIP 1,106
- Hove (Lab hold) Majority 420 - UKIP 575
- Medway (Lab hold) Majority: 213 - UKIP 1,488
- Portsmouth North (Lab hold) Majority: 1,139 - UKIP 1,348
- Romsey (LD hold) Majority 125  UKIP: 1,076
- Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Lab hold) Majority: 79 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,118
- Solihull (LD Gain) Majority: 279 - UKIP: 990
- Somerton & Frome (LD hold) Majority: 812 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,531
- Staffordshire Moorlands (Lab hold) Majority: 2,438 -  UKIP: 3,512
- Stroud (Lab hold) Majority: 350 - UKIP: 1,089
- Stourbridge (Lab hold) Majority: 407 - UKIP: 1,087
- Taunton (LD gain) Majority: 573  UKIP: 1,441
- Thanet South (Lab hold) Majority: 664 - UKIP (Nigel Farage) 2,079
- Torbay (LD hold) Majority: 2,029 - UKIP 3,726
- Warwick & Leamington (Lab hold) Majority: 306 - UKIP: 921
- Watford (Lab hold) Majority: 1,148 - UKIP: 1,292
- Westmorland & Lonsdale (LD gain) Majority: 267 - UKIP: 660

From this, it is clear that potentially, UKIP/Veritas had a far more significant effect on the election than their vote would imply. Given how different today would look if Blair has a majority of 30 and Kennedy had only taken two seats, it could be said that the "UKIP effect" is the political sensation of the election - and one that the mainstream media missed completely.

Furthermore, from provisional data, it is evident that UKIP is –– almost under the radar –– making steady gains in a hostile electoral environment. Seats fought over the last three elections have increased from 194 and 434 to 497, while the national share of vote has increased from 0.34% and 1.47% to 2.38%, with deposits saved increasing from one in 1997 to six in 2001 and 45 in this current election.

Total votes stood at 106,001 in 1997, at 390,910 in 2001 and at roughly 610,000 this time round. Given the tenacity of the Party, even where funding had dried up, fielding 497 candidates was a considerable achievement and there is no reason to expect that the Party will be any less tenacious in the next general election.

On the basis that the UKIP vote increases the same amount in the next election, having gone through the current results and worked out, provisionally, that some 15 extra Conservative seats could be lost to the "UKIP effect" in the next election.

These include Devon West, Eastbourne, Guildford, Totnes and the Wrekin, these would be in addition to the current 27 potentials, which would bring Conservative losses to 42.

All this, of course, is theoretical but there is good reason to believe that –– all things being equal –– UKIP could maintain its rate of growth or even improve its performance. For instance, with a prolonged EU referendum battle, it could improve its profile and attract greater support.

Crucially, the most probable year for the next general election is 2009 which, this time, coincides with the Euro-elections, which might even be held on the same date. That would put ““Europe”” firmly on the agenda and could significantly benefit UKIP.

The failure to develop a fully Eurosceptic policy and the missed opportunity of making "Europe", in just a small way, a part of the Conservatives Party's election campaign handicapped them and allowed Labour to retain a sizeable majority. Clearly, the Conservatives cannot afford to ignore neither "Europe" nor UKIP at the next election, if they are to stand a chance of winning and forming a government.’

The point made in the press release may be simplistic in that it assumes that UKIP/Veritas support is at the Tories’ expense. But certainly, if the Tories were genuinely prepared to deal with the EU problem, then they should be attracting that support.

But it is not the whole picture. The big issue in the election campaign was not the EU but immigration. On this issue, the Tories made a big noise, but their policy was weak and not credible. They were trying to get the vote of those who wanted an end to mass immigration, and yet the Tory policy would not have achieved that objective even if it had worked. The Tories were promising ‘controlled immigration’ and their policy involved the uncooperative UN and the setting up of asylum centres in unidentified foreign countries.

Using the logic of the Bruges Group, the BNP also deprived the Tories of several seats. For example, in the Calder Valley constituency, Labour won a majority of 1,367 over the Tories and the BNP vote was 1,887 (4% of the vote). In Dewsbury, the Labour majority was 4,615 and the BNP vote 5,066 (13.1% of the vote).

In Shipley, where there was no UKIP candidate, the Tories won the seat back from Labour with a majority of 422, the BNP vote was 2000 (4.2%). Clearly, if UKIP had stood, or chooses to stand there in 2009, or if the BNP vote improves in 2009, then Labour would have won/or will win.

Neighbouring Keighley, another marginal constituency, also had no UKIP candidate (although there had been one in 2001). Labour won with a majority of 4,852, and the BNP polled 4,240 (9.2%).

The Tories did retake Scarborough and Whitby from Labour, with a majority of 1,245. There was a UKIP candidate, but no BNP candidate.

The Tories failed to retake Selby, one of the most marginal Labour seats in the UK. Labour defended a 2,138 majority and held on by 467 votes. There was neither a UKIP or a BNP candidate.

In Batley and Spen, Labour held the seat from the Tories with a majority of 5,788 and the BNP polled 2,668 (6.8%). In Elmet, another marginal, Labour won by 4,528 and the BNP polled 1,231 (2.6%).

Labour won in a number of other constituencies where there was no BNP candidate, and yet such constituencies are Tory target seats. In Brigg and Goole, Labour won by 2,894. In Cleethorpes, Labour won by 2,642. In Leeds North East, Labour won by 5,262. In both Brigg and Goole, and Cleethorpes there was a UKIP candidate, in Leeds North East there was not.

These are examples only from Yorkshire, the main target area for the BNP, and this is not a comprehensive picture of either Yorkshire or the country as a whole. It is to be expected that the BNP will continue to make progress, especially as Labour will continue with its policy of mass immigration.

Immigrants are also far more likely to vote Labour than Tory.

The fact is that the BNP are already costing the Tories seats and are likely to cost them even more seats in 2009, unless the Tories cut the waffle finally grapple with the immigration issue (which seems highly unlikely). Alternatively, another fringe party will properly deal with the immigration issue and will itself take support from the Tories - and that fringe party may not have the BNP’s image problem and so will attract more support more easily.

Then there is the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula. Both of these issues are certain to move up the political agenda, given that Labour is totally dependent on its Scottish and Welsh MPs for its majority. The English Democrats are already fielding candidates and are certain to field very many more in 2009.

Yet on these English issues, the Tories have policies which will alienate their core English voters (they are opposed to an English parliament to put the English on an equal footing with the Scottish and Welsh, and also wish to increase the amount of money paid to Scotland rather than end this unjustified subsidy, currently running at £10billion per year and rising). So the Tories are likely to lose increasing support to the English Democrats (who also have policies on immigration and the EU far closer to public opinion than the Tories’).

The Tories are already haemorrhaging support to UKIP, Veritas and the BNP, and will soon be haemorrhaging support to the English Democrats as well. The Tories are stuck at 33% of the vote, the same that they achieved in the 2001 general election, and even this level of support could collapse in 2009.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Barnabas Houses, a Christian run shelter for the homeless, has been told that it can expect to lose its £150,000 government grant and is facing closure as a result. This is because grace is said at mealtimes and bibles have been made available. Consequently it has been accused of being insufficiently ‘inclusive’ of other faiths.

The shelter has also been told that it must stop the advertisement of Christian events and to also lift its ban on alcohol and drugs.

Barnabas Houses consists of 3 refuges in King’s Lynn ,Norfolk, and the government grant forms a ‘major part’ of the running costs.

The staff have not received a single complaint about the Christian ethos of the shelter since it was formed in 1993, and many of those admitted are either non-Christians or are believers in other religions.

The threat to withdraw the grant comes from the Conservative Norfolk County Council, which has recently condemned the use of the term ‘Holy Ghost’. A council spokesman said that prayers and grace could be ‘inappropriate given the backgrounds of service users’ and that the shelter’s ‘trustees and management have been advised that they need consistent and realistic policies on alcohol and drugs. Experience has shown that outright bans simply move the problems on to the streets’.

The shelter’s trustees are considering whether or not to obey the council or risk losing the funding.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UN

At the time when the Tories (and Veritas) are advocating the handing over of control of the immigration of asylum seekers into the UK to the UN, the UN has just re-elected Zimbabwe to its Human Rights Commission.

Such a reappointment given the evil nature of the Mugabe regime, merely demonstrates the limitations of the UN and its communist sympathies.

Zimbabwe has recently announced that in excess of 1.2million tons of maize will be imported due to food shortages.

AN ELECTION RIGGED

No doubt there will be some wrangles over irregularities in the postal ballots - when there was no need to change from the previous system. No doubt there will be much less attention paid to the effect of the change in the system of postal ballots for servicemen, which led to a substantial reduction in the numbers voting, or the denial of any votes for many ex-patriots due to yet another change in the rules.

There is even less attention paid to the Boundary Commission’s failure to update the constituency boundaries which means that Labour needs far fewer votes to win an MP and so far fewer votes to win an overall majority. Labour has a large majority of 65 despite only achieving 36% of the vote, against 33% for the Conservatives. Labour has won 355 MPs while the Conservatives have only 197.

But the stark fact remains that Labour has no legitimate democratic mandate to govern England at all.

The system of devolution, which the Conservatives have happily accepted, has led to the present outcome where Labour lost the election in England and is totally dependent on Scottish and Welsh MPs for the illegitimate majority in the House of Commons.

In England, the Conservatives got 8,086,306 votes, and Labour had just 8,028,512.

Moreover Labour’s 65 seat majority has to be set against the fact that there are 40 MPs from Wales, of whom 29 are Labour, and another 59 from Scotland, of whom 41 are Labour. Without those 70 Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Labour is in a minority.

This scandalous situation means that Labour has managed to manipulate the constitution and voting system in order to undermine democracy, and enable itself to cling on to office. It will thereby impose a socialist state on England against the wishes and interests of the English people.

This cannot be allowed to continue. We demand an English parliament to represent English interests NOW.

IMMIGRATION POLICIES

Immigration has been the policy issue in the general election campaign. On the doorstep, it is unusual to find voters who are not opposed to the present scale of immigration. How have the political parties responded to this?

Labour, which is responsible for the current levels of immigration, remains in favour of mass immigration, but is claiming to have brought down the number of asylum seekers. They are also promising to introduce a points system (which they copied from the Tories, who in turn copied it from Veritas, who in turn had copied it from the English Democrats). Labour cannot claim a mandate for their mass immigration policy as they deny that there is one. But that is their policy and under Labour mass immigration will continue.

The Liberal Democrats also support mass immigration and take a more favourable view of asylum seeking than Labour. However, they also claim to favour ‘a green card system for immigration, with limits agreed by Parliament in London’ (ie not decided by the EU). The Lib Dem policy is therefore very similar to the Conservative one. However the Liberal Democrats take a more moral view regarding immigration and advocate mass immigration and asylum seeking for moral reasons.

The Conservative Party’s policy has been copied by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even Veritas (regarding the processing of asylum seekers). The Conservatives talk of ‘controlled immigration’ which can mean anything and will abdicate responsibility for the admission of asylum seekers into the UK to UN officials (who would certainly be offered bribes) and an annual vote in Parliament to set the numbers of total immigration. Many Conservatives have always favoured mass immigration and to have an annual vote in Parliament is not a commitment to the ending of mass immigration at all.

The UN have openly stated that they will refuse to cooperate. The Conservative Party policy, therefore, might make immigration more manageable, but it will not stop mass immigration and the policy is fundamentally lacking in credibility.

Veritas have cribbed the idea of processing asylum seekers overseas from the Conservatives and their policy is therefore as lacking in credibility as the Conservative one is. The commitment to give up to 1million illegal immigrants an amnesty, as a sop to the politically correct, provided that they have children is grossly irresponsible. Trying to suck up to politically correct zealots should not be the basis of the formulation of immigration policy. If immigrants are told that they need to impregnate someone in order to remain in the UK, then experience demonstrates that that is exactly what they will do.

Illegal immigrants should be deported and not given British passports.

UKIP has made quite a play on immigration. Their election address states: ‘Say No to unlimited immigration’ on the front, and ‘Stop unlimited EU immigration’ on the inside (presumably unlimited non-EU immigration is acceptable). UKIP promises to leave the EU and so regain control of our borders. But the UKIP policy is to aim to have net migration at around zero. This means that UKIP is in favour of in excess of 250,000 non-British immigrants every year (this is because of the numbers of emigrants and UKIP’s policy therefore requires an equal number of immigrants into the UK). UKIP is in favour of mass immigration.

The English Democrats were the ones to originally advocate a points system for immigration. On their website, they clearly set out their immigration policy:

‘We need to change immigration policy so that it better reflects the needs and wishes of the English people. There should be a points system for entry to the UK which is based on the Canadian model.

Points should be awarded for, among other things: educational and professional qualification; family links with England; financial resources; the ability to speak English. In other words, entry should be determined by our needs as a society and the ability of newcomers to be absorbed into the prevailing public culture. High priority should be given to creating a peaceful society which is bound together by shared values and perceptions.

Should there be an economic need for immigration it should be met by the employment of people on fixed term work permits. Our aim should be to meet the need for skilled workers from within.

International law is not fixed for all time. We should not feel bound by rules that were devised 50 years ago when circumstances were very different. Asylum seekers should seek asylum in a state adjoining or nearby the state from which they are fleeing. The wishes and interests of the English should be the dominant factors in determining asylum and immigration policies for England.

Our principle concern is to preserve and build on what is left of English cultural unity and social cohesion. The preservation of our identity and culture are at least as important as economic considerations. We do not accept the fallacious but widely publicised economic arguments for mass immigration. For the most part they greatly exaggerate the economic benefits and wholly ignore the economic, social, and cultural costs.

WE MUST REGAIN CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS
The customs and immigration services should be strengthened and laws vigorously enforced.’

The English Democrats are not interested in multiculturalism and are the only moderate party unequivocally advocating an end to mass immigration.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘You don’t tax a loss. You only tax a profit. You raise more, the more profit there is to tax. We all live on the profits of British industry. It’s a truism. And those people have been gravely misled, who imagine that there is one set of people, remote people, somewhere over there, who live on profits, but the rest of us don’t. We all do. We are all in this together. And the future of all of us is bound up with the future of free British industry’.

Enoch Powell

There is this quaint view, which has not been challenged by anyone during the general election campaign, that those in the NHS who have been happily running up huge debts are in some way morally superior to the rest of us. That the fact that they do not have to concern themselves with anything as vulgar as making a profit, is a sign of the NHS ethos.

This is the socialist view.

And that is the problem.

Like it or not, and there are very many who do not like to hear this, but the price mechanism and the profit motive are the most efficient way of distributing resources. When the price mechanism is abolished, then there are either shortages or surpluses. There are no exceptions.

This is not a dogmatic view. In war, rationing is introduced in order to ensure that everyone receives their fair share of basic commodities. But this is only an example of an exception to the rule, and an example of the alternative administration of shortages. Rationing should not have to apply to the NHS.

There are many examples today of the effects of abolishing the price mechanism. The EU Common Agricultural Policy is a prime example. Prices are fixed artificially high in order to encourage production (and that was the original deliberate intention). This policy was very successful, and the result was butter mountains and wine lakes.

In Zimbabwe, as in many other African countries, the communists fixed the price of maize, which was the staple food of the African diet, at an artificially low price - in order to win support and votes. They were not concerned with the fact that the price was uneconomic. Within 6 years, maize production in Zimbabwe (the former breadbasket of southern Africa) had halved and widespread starvation followed (and subsequently the communists started to murder white farmers and expropriate white owned farms, which only made matters much worse).

The price of NHS treatment is zero. This means that the NHS faces unlimited demand, including demand for healthcare from immigrants (the NHS is in fact trying to be an International Health Service). Other continental European countries have a subsidised health insurance system, in which the insurance companies pay the cost of hospital treatment in return for insurance payments from individuals. There are no queues, no recruitment of 3rd World nurses and doctors, nor any waiting lists in these countries. In fact those countries are amazed at what goes on in the UK.

But Labour have ruled out the introduction of such a system in the UK. This stance is supported by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

All 3 main parties prefer to try and micro-manage the NHS and are happy for the UK to have the British Leyland of the world’s healthcare systems.

The main source of funds for investment in business, is retained profit - not borrowing, nor share issues nor government grants. Retained profit is the means by which equity finance is attracted, the means from which higher salaries can be paid, and the primary means by which investment is funded.

The NHS does not make a profit. It runs up huge debts and is dependent upon government grants (ie tax income from the profits made by the rest of us). This means that the NHS will be permanently short of money to pay extra staff wages, higher wages, or to make necessary capital investment for the future. Due to the nil pricing, it will also face unlimited demand and a misallocation of resources as those parts of the NHS which have surplus capacity will be unaffected by a falling price for their service, and those parts of the NHS which insufficient capacity will be permanently underfunded as they do not receive the benefit of higher prices/profits.

Until such time as any party is prepared to even consider denationalising the NHS, there will continue to be waiting lists (official and unofficial), low wages, shortages, inefficiencies and a lack of capital investment. This is inevitable. The NHS will continue to fail.

IMMIGRATION/VOTE RIGGING

Below is a copy of an article which recently appeared in the Sunday Telegraph:

'Labour's immigration policy? Lots more of it
By Alasdair Palmer
(Filed: 24/04/2005)

When the Prime Minister gave his speech on immigration from Dover on Friday, he
went out of his way to reassure voters that the Government was getting the
problem under control. He recognised that people were concerned about it, but he
insisted that "we are listening". His Government, he said, had been "working
hard at it" - and asylum applications had fallen as a consequence. He gave the
impression that the furore over immigration was only a result of the abuse of
the asylum system, and of people - encouraged by Michael Howard's "divisive"
rhetoric - not realising how much the Government had done to curb it. The Labour
Government, Tony Blair stressed, already had "strict controls" to reduce both
legal and illegal immigration. It would institute yet more controls should it
win the election.

All those claims are false - and the Prime Minister knows it. The biggest
misrepresentation of all is the suggestion that asylum is the main source of
immigration into Britain. It isn't. The main source of immigration into Britain
is the Government's policy of increasing the numbers of people allowed to settle
here from non-EU countries. According to official statistics, asylum
applications account for only 14 per cent of the annual total. By far the
largest portion - nearly 50 per cent - are people given work permits by the
Government, and the dependants they bring with them. Labour has increased thenumber of work permits it issues by a factor of four since 1997. The Work
Permits Agency, a branch of the Home Office, has even written to companies
asking them if they have thought of recruiting from non-EU countries: it offers
them assistance should they wish to do so.

There was no mention of this remarkable policy in the Prime Minister's speech.
Instead, he promised that the Government would "introduce the type of points
system used in Australia" to "ensure our economy gets the skills we need". But
the truth is that the Government already has a points system - and has used it
not to decrease but to increase the number of migrants allowed into Britain.
Labour introduced the system in 2002 under the title of the "Highly Skilled
Migrants Programme". From the Government's point of view, its one drawback was
that it turned out to let too few people in: the standards required were too
high. So what did the Government do? It reduced the number of points needed. The
result was a deluge of applications. The Government was able to let in even more
people than it hoped.

There can be no doubt that the Government's policy is to maximise the flow of
migrants to Britain. In a statement last November - attached to a suitably
anonymous document on the impact of identity cards - the Government admitted
that it "wants to encourage lawful migration to this country, sustaining and
perhaps increasing the present levels". Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has
said: "We want more immigration, more people coming to study, to work." That
policy is reflected in the numbers of people Labour has let into Britain since
it came to power. In the last 10 years of Conservative government, the average
annual figure for net migration into Britain (the number who arrive to stay
minus the number who leave) was 59,300. In the seven years since Labour has been
in power, the annual average has been 157,000.

No one, however, would realise that fact from listening to Mr Blair's speech.
Indeed, the odd thing about Labour's policy on immigration is that it has never
been fully spelt out. It was not part of Labour's election manifesto of 1997, or
2001, just as it is not mentioned in its current manifesto. Labour has never
given an explanation of why encouraging immigration is a good policy, probably
because the Government has never admitted that it is already implementing
precisely that policy. The most we get from ministers, the Prime Minister
included, are general assertions that "migration is good for the economy", that
we need to import workers because of our ageing population, or that "the NHS
depends on it".

Those claims are transparently fallacious, and have been comprehensively
debunked by academic economists. Immigration does not solve the pensions crisis
because it cannot sufficiently improve the ratio of workers to the retired: it
can at most delay the moment of reckoning, for the simple reason that immigrants
get old themselves. The scholarly consensus on the beneficial effects of
immigration on the economy is that it is either very small or slightly negative.
There is no "bonzana" from an injection of largely unskilled labour into the
economy.

It is certainly true that immigration is good for employers. Competition from
immigrant workers drives down wages, particularly at the unskilled end of themarket, which is where most immigrants end up - a fact that Mervyn King, the
Governor of the Bank of England, has emphasised, and which richer people, those
who employ nannies and cleaners, will have noticed. Immigration creates what
Marx called "a reserve army of labour". It enables employers to avoid paying the
level of wages native workers demand. That may be why the Government insists
that "the NHS depends" on immigrant workers. Keeping NHS costs down certainly
does depend on being able to pay NHS workers less than a market rate for their
services - but it is not something one would expect a Labour Government to boast
about.

Why is Labour, which is supposed to be the party of Britain's least privileged
workers, following a policy that disadvantages them further? Has it really
mutated into the party protecting the interests of the nanny-employing classes?
Possibly: most Labour ministers certainly fit that description. There may,
however, be another explanation. Surveys demonstrate that most immigrants from
non EU countries vote Labour - a fact that we can be sure is not lost on the
Prime Minister.

Immigration at Labour's present rate of more than 150,000 people a year will
inevitably bring about dramatic transformations in many areas. The immediate
issue is really not whether such changes are a good or a bad thing, or whether
it is racist to oppose them. The issue is that the transformation is taking
place as the result of a Government policy about which the electorate has not
been consulted, or indeed informed. Labour's immigration policy involves a giant
social experiment - and it is the people of this country who are the lab rats.
The Government has deliberately deceived the public about that policy, as Tony
Blair's speech on Friday shows. It is a cynical and shocking subversion of our
democracy.'

ON THE DOORSTEP

For those who have been canvassing in the general election campaign, 2 items stand out.

Firstly, people are well aware of the West Lothian Question and are angry about it. They are well aware that they are being ripped-off. This includes traditional Labour voters too - even ex-miners. To a lesser extent, they are aware of the Barnett Formula which is fleecing them and subsidising Scotland and Wales. But those who are not aware of this, very quickly grasp the fact when confronted with it.

Secondly, there is the issue of immigration. Once again, even traditional Labour supporters are angry at what is happening and need no prompting before giving their views, which are very forthright. Immigration is a more important factor at this election than it has been at any election since the 1970s.

More generally, there is widespread disaffection with Labour - even amongst its traditional supporters. ‘He’s a liar’, is one comment which spills out regarding Tony Blair. The Iraq war, and the manner in which Labour lied to con us into it, is not just a matter for anoraks.

‘He’s never had a proper job’, or, ‘He’s never got his hands dirty in his life’, are the type of comments being used to describe Labour candidates. Again, these are comments from traditional Labour voters, including ex-miners.

There is also disaffection with the main parties in general. ‘There all the same’ is a well used comment of the 3 main parties. The voters do not believe any of them.

However, none of this is reflected by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. ‘The Politics Show’ at 12pm, in the regional section, had a group of people from Doncaster giving their views on the issues which mattered the them. The first person interviewed launched into a speech as to how wonderful Labour had been for Doncaster, and this was endorsed by the others - although one student was concerned about 3rd World debt. The token Tory, a businessman, did not criticise Labour even once nor voice any support for the Conservative Party.

Doncaster, a traditional Labour stronghold, has been mired in the ‘Donnygate’ corruption scandal.

Nor did the Question Time audience on Thursday raise even one question to Tony Blair about immigration - although they were very aggressive towards Michael Howard on the issue.

However, Tony Blair did get himself into trouble over the NHS. The English Rights Campaign will deal with this matter shortly.