Labour looking for an even higher proportion of Muslim votes?

I note that Ed Miliband has promised the Muslim 'community' that:

A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime.

More at The Muslim News

I wonder what is Ed Miliband's definition of Islamophobia?

Is this Islamophobic?



I wonder if anti-Semitism will get equal protection from a Labour government? Of course not, there's a lot more Muslims than Jews in the UK, and so lots more potential Labour votes if Ed Miliband and his party pander to Islamism.

Is this where Labour got their policy of expanding the public sector from?

If there is a temporary shortage of the people’s money, because of the exploits of the banks, exploits of which we could not be expected to have been aware, we have to unlock some of the money that the people will have tomorrow so that it can be spent today on making up the temporary shortfall. Thus maintaining spending on the people’s priorities. Remember, if the people don’t have money today how are they going to create the money tomorrow from which we’ve borrowed to pay for the people’s priorities today?”

Iain Martin has a wonderful piece of satire about Ed 'con of Brown' Miliband, Ed 'second choice' Balls and Yvette 'has to listen to him go on and on and on and on, but at least he managed to get around to marry me' Cooper...

Labour's plans for VAT

'Proposed changes
VAT rates and exemptions

VAT is a tax on the final consumption of goods and services, collected at every stage of production and distribution. It is charged on the majority of goods and services at the standard rate of 17.5%. The proposed changes will reduce this to 15% from 1 December 2008 until the end of 2009. The standard rate will then return to 17.5% from 1 January 2010, and subsequently increase to 18.5% in 2011-12.'

The above is from 'EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE VALUE ADDED TAX (CHANGE OF RATE) ORDER 2008 2008 No. 3020' and shows that Labour planned to increase VAT to 18.5% in 2011-12.

So the next time Ed 'son of Brown' Miliband or Alan 'needs an economics primer' Johnson witters on about VAT being a regressive tax and that the increase is putting the recovery at risk, maybe the interviewer could raise this point...

More at Scribd here.

Thanks to Harry Cole on Twitter for the spot.

Can you spot the missing word in this BBC news report?

The BBC report that

'More than one in five of England's primary schools are full to bursting point, government statistics reveal.'

Apparently:

'Some 20.3% of state primaries, 3,444 in total, are full or have more pupils than they should, Department for Education figures show.

The numbers are up on last year, when just under a fifth (19.8%), some 3,376 primaries were full.

It follows claims any schools funding increases from the spending review will be wiped out by rising pupil numbers.

Analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests per pupil funding will fall in real terms by 0.6% per year because of expected increases in pupil numbers.

The new figures will also revive concerns about a lack of school places in some parts of England, particularly in big cities such as London and Birmingham.'

So why are schools so crowded, are some closing down leaving others to cope with the pressure?

The BBC report, as a section heading, that the problem may be 'Booming birth rates'
but only discuss that aspect near the end of that section with this solitary sentence:

"Areas experiencing booming birth rates need to be able to expand primary schools so that every child has a place not too far from their home."

Now why would some areas have a booming birth rate and not others? What possible reason could there be? And why are the BBC not interested in investigating this area? Could it possibly be that the areas with 'booming birth rates' are areas with a high proportion of immigrants and that the increase in pupil numbers is not just due to a 'booming birth rate' but also immigrants bringing their families with them when they come here for work, despite the last Labour government telling us that this would not happen. Mind you the last Labour government reassured us that total immigration form EU countries would be measured in the tens of thousands, whereas in reality the figure is nearer one million.

Thanks to Andrew Neather we do at least we know why the Labour government deliberately opened "up the UK to mass migration", it was at least in part due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

Labour sold us on the the benefits of immigration: filling jobs that Britons were unwilling or unable to do, adding to the vibrancy of the UK, culturally enriching the Nation. They were less willing to discuss the associated downside of overstretched public services such as the NHS & schools, let alone the problems that importing people some with very different ideas about tolerance and human rights into this Country.

So some questions:
1) Why do the BBC not mention the word immigration in their article?
2) Will anyone ever hold the last Labour government to account for their deliberate policy of encouraging mass immigration?
3) How will this all end for the UK?

'Geoff Hoon spent nearly £560,000 of MOD money on modern art while British soldiers were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan through lack of equipment'

The Mail reports that:

'Geoff Hoon spent nearly £560,000 of Ministry of Defence money on modern art while British soldiers were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan through lack of equipment.

The former Defence Secretary wasted the huge sum on 15 pieces of abstract art to hang on the walls of his department between 2003 and 2005.

Meanwhile, the Labour government faced criticism for putting servicemen and women in danger by scrimping on essential kit such as helicopters, radios and night goggles, and forcing their families to live in rundown military homes.'

Has there ever been a worse Secretary of State for Defence than Hoon? Well Bob Ainsworth maybe... When will ex-Labour Ministers be made to account for their crimes?


Thaks to My Thoughts, My Country for the spot.

"mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy"

A reminder of a piece that I posted just under a year ago. Did the Labour government ever really answer the acusations made by Andrew Neather?

'This is one of the most incredible and maybe political landscape changing stories I have reported since I started this blog.

The Telegraph report that:

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s."

If true and I have heard no Labour minister deny it, then this is political dynamite. It blows a hole in the side of this Labour government and destroys what is left of their fingerhold on credibility. Mr Neather was a man who worked at the heart of this Labour government and who saw the raw material that he helped turn into speeches; he knows what facts were deliberately excluded and why.

The Telegraph article continues with this damning passage, again about Mr Teather:

"He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month."

I wonder if Barabara Roche is available for comment.


Mr Teather is keen to point out that:

"(he) defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."

This, if true, is going to play out very badly for the Labour party in its heartlands and should see a further erosion in their support to the BNP. (see end of this post for a cynics response)

The report ends with comments from various concerned individuals: first Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch who has been calling for the truth to be told on immigration for a long time and suffered being tagged as a racist when it was verbotten to even discuss the subject, second Frank Field and Nicholas Soames whose recent report I mentioned yesterday and finally from a Home Office spokesman who ignores the central point of Mr Teather's claims:

"Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

A Home Office spokesman said: “Our new flexible points based system gives us greater control on those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.

“Britain's borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards to foreign nationals, we have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK.

“The British people can be confident that immigration is under control.”"

There is a not a whiff of this story on the BBC who prefer to report under the headline "BNP support in poll sparks anger" ...'

What Labour leaders say is not always the case

The Anger of a Quiet Man has been comparing Ed Miliband's speech with his record: This from the BBC:

'Ed Miliband has said Labour "needs to change" after its election defeat, in his first big speech as party leader.
He praised the party's achievements but said they had to face "painful truths" - such as the Iraq war being "wrong".
In an hour-long speech he also said the party failed to listen to voters' concerns on immigration.
Mr Miliband, who paid tribute to "extraordinary" brother David, said the "new generation" in Labour were now "the optimists" in British politics.
In a more personal part of the speech he told how his parents' experience as refugees fleeing the Nazis shaped his values. '

This from PublicWhip (my emphasis):

'How Edward Miliband voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for more EU integration.
Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.
Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.
Voted moderately for replacing Trident.
Voted very strongly for introducing a smoking ban.
Voted very strongly for a stricter asylum system.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly for allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.
Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change.
Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
Voted very strongly for a wholly elected House of Lords. '

'The ethnic cleansing of the English'

Sometime UKIP candidate Paul Weston expresses some rather strong views, take a read and decide what you think. Here's a cople of extracts for flavour:

'The vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain blissfully unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate them to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.

...

For the white working class, however, those long-forgotten stalwarts of the country who failed to play their designated role in the long term plans of Mr Marx and Mr Engels, thereby earning the enduring hatred of the cuckolded intellectuals, it means nothing other than population replacement, or in the cruder yet more honest language of the betrayed working man rarely encountered at progressive Hampstead dinner parties, ethnic cleansing.

...

And today we live with the results of this treason and betrayal. Tower Hamlets is now called “Banglatown” where, with the exception of a few vicars otherwise known as clerical punch bags, there are virtually no whites left, just as there are very few whites in many other areas of London where the non-white population now amounts to 42% with a full one-third of all “Londoners” born outside the UK.


...

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.


...

One only has to walk around our towns and cities to realise that population replacement is a substantive and rapidly accelerating fact. British MP Ann Cryer, who represents Keighley, a town near Bradford, estimates that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over the last four years to work, study or marry, with imported wives making up 80% of all marriages in her area, where local police chiefs describe community cohesion between the indigenous and the non-indigenous tribes as “nerve-jangling.”


...

But England of course is just a microcosm of what is a global phenomenon. The third world is booming and exporting its youth bulge to the first world, bringing with it a religion and a culture unsuited to democracy and peaceful co-existence. This can only lead to catastrophe for the indigenous populations. We have seen what happened after the Islamic takeover of majority Christian Lebanon; a 15 year religious civil war that took the lives of close to 10% of the population and wounded 33% — half of whom suffered from lifetime disabilities. So what exactly is the rationale behind importing Islam to the West?'

A Labour success story

The Mail reports the not that surprising news that

'Just one in ten babies is born to a white British mother in some parts of the country, figures reveal.

The statistics - based on NHS monitoring of the ethnicity and nationality of patients - show a sharp contrast in the backgrounds of new mothers in urban and rural areas.

While white British mothers accounted for just 9.4 per cent of all births in one London health trust, the figure was 97.4 per cent of all births in Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.

The birth statistics reflect how mothers described themselves, not the ethnicity of the fathers or the babies.

Across all of England's 150 NHS Trusts there were 652,638 deliveries last year, around six out of ten of them to women who called themselves white British.'

Last year we all discovered that mass immigration was not an accident but a deliberate Labour policy radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity" so well done Labour, well done, I am sure that future generations will thank you appropriately.

The true story of mass immigration into the UK during the last Labour government will be told one day, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't be the BBC doing the telling.

There's no money left (update)

Mrs Rigsby has some worrying background to Labour's pre-election spending spree.

'It would seem that this gung-ho approach to finance might have continued right to the end of Labour's time in office. Get people/schools/businesses/local groups to spend their money putting together the right sort of funding claim, which put money into consultants pockets and, in these instances, took it away from education - where it was most needed.

Money was there 'for the bidding', and promises were made, but nobody seems to have taken the time to sit down and add all the numbers together - but it didn't matter too much, because somebody else's name would soon be on the office door, somebody else could deal with the mess. And nobody had thought it might have been wiser to spend some of the consultation money on renovation and extension - because they were told things had to be new.

That, to Mrs Rigby, epitomises what Labour has done to Britain. It promised, and failed to deliver. It raised hopes, then secretly withdrew promises. It told people they were silly when they were upset, that it was their own stupid fault when things went wrong.

Nobody in government ever put up their hand and admitted they were wrong, nobody ever admitted a scheme or policy was flawed - the most that happened was that 'flagships' were quietly disappeared, and replaced by a distractingly shiny new one, in the hope that nobody would notice.'

Some thoughts on the political mess

There are two phrases being bandied around that are really getting on my nerves: "The Country voted for a hung Parliament" - No it didn't, a hung Parliament was not an option on the ballot paper. Voters voted Conservative, Labour LibDem, SNP etc. Nobody could vote for a hung Parliament and there is no evidence that people wanted one.

"No overall majority means no-one ‘won’ the election" - Not true, one political party polled more votes and got more seats than the rest, that party should have the chance to form a government, not the party that came second.


Did Robert Mugabe Gordon Brown actually resign yesterday? I think not, if he had resigned then the Queen would be constitutionally bound to approach David Cameron as the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons and ask him if he could form a government. That did not ahhpen because Gordon Brown did not resign. What he said was that he will stay on as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party for four months or so until a Labour leadership election is held. But has the leadership election process been started by the Labour party? No because there might not be one; Peter Mandelson would like to appoint David Miliband into the role as that would save time and anyway democracy can be messy and produce the wrong results.


How long before the Labour 'government' introduce a form of proportional representation without an approving referendum in an attempt to ensure permanent left of centre government?

First the coup, next the enabling act?

We've had the coup as a defeated Labour party and a third place LibDem party try to take power regardless of losing the election.

We've had the BBC pushing 'fair votes' as what is needed.

Next will be the introduction of a 'proportional' voting system before the next general election obviously without a referendum as it is 'the right thing to do'. Such a voting system will ensure perpetual left of centre government - is this the equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Act? How long before all political parties not to the liking of the Labour/LibDem/BBC alliance are banned? First the BNP, then UKIP, then the 'evil Tories'? I am sorry, but this is what happens when totalitarians get hold of power, they keep it until force is used to expel them, and I just don't see anyone having the balls to force them out.

Labour have given up on winning the popular vote but still hope to win the most seats

The immediate reaction of the Labour party to last night's You Gov poll showing the Lib Dems overtaking the Labour party was to twitter: 'YouGov: Seats CON: 244 LAB: 271 LDEM 103 #ge2010 #labourwin'

As Dizzy Thinks writes:

'Now, losing the popular vote, coming second but still winning power, as in 2005, flew... just. However, boasting that even if you come third you'll still win most seats whilst campaigning on an electoral reform agenda?

Would the infamous "court of public opinion" stand for that?'

One more election not won by the Conservative party and the EU project can be finished, the 'new world order' established and electoral reform introduced to ensure a succession of left of centre governments and seats for the very minority parties that the liberal left claim to hate. Don't you just love democracy?

Now maybe the Conservatives will regret not standing up and complaining, as Labour did previously, to the Electoral Commission about the bias inherent in the UK electoral system. Regrets are one thing but it is far too late now and the left wing chickens are coming home to roost and whilst they roost they will crap all over the Conservative party's shiny new car.

The fallout from the first Leaders' debate (part 1)

So as I predicted Nick Clegg gained hugely from the first leaders' debate and from the way that Gordon Brown was cosying up to Nick Clegg during the debate and the way that Peter Mandelson was 'bigging up' Nick Clegg in interviews afterwards it would seem that the Lib-Lab pact is up and running already.

It would seem that the Labour leadership have done their calculations and realised that the guff about narrowing polls was just guff and that the larger swing in the marginals would be enough to give the Conservatives a working majority. So 'plan B' it had to be; 'plan B' being boosting the Lib Dems to ensure that Labour and the Lib Dems could form a government, change the voting system and so ensure a perpetual left of centre government in the UK. First readings seem to show that the Lib Dems have indeed been boosted but what if they are boosted too much?

Will the Lib Dems gain as much as the initial polls record? If the Lib Dems do gain will it be at the expense of the Conservatives in the south and west or Labour in the north?
The Labour calculation must be that disenchanted Labour voters would rather move to the Lib Dems than the Conservatives, are they right?
What if the Lib Dem voters who voted Labour in 1997, 2001 & 2005 so as to keep the Conservatives out as the Lib Dems couldn't win, now decide to vote Lib Dem; what might that do to the number of Labour MPs returned to Parliament?
I wonder what Labour MPs in Labour/Lib Dem marginals think of this tactic; do they like being thought of as expendable in the great war against the Tories?

Lots of questions there, but tomorrow an alternative theory from the more paranoid side of NotaSheep's brain...





Political Betting speculate that: 'Reports are buzzing about that the Lib Dems have moved into second place in a poll due out tonight. I assume it is YouGov - no doubt we will find out soon.'

Do you have any bull semen in your house? Does your fridge have the wrong energy rating?

This Labour government has extended the powers of various state officials to enter our houses and the gorgeous Emily Nomates has a list that she has extracted from a Caroline Spelman article.

Caroline Spelman pledges:

'Now the Conservatives plan to again protect the privacy and liberty of homeowners by taking the following actions:

* All powers of entry inside homes by state officials would require a magistrates’ warrant. These restrictions will apply to all quangos, departments and agencies which are not specified law enforcement bodies or emergency services.
* New statutory guidance will stop magistrates giving consent for entering inside a home unless a serious criminal offence was suspected of being committed, or if there was a clear threat to public safety. The provisions would not apply to illegally occupied sites (e.g. squatters, travellers) or to long-term vacant property (e.g. rundown, boarded up properties).
* The powers of the Valuation Office Agency to enter homes for council tax valuations will be abolished outright, as will town hall powers to seize and spy on people’s bins. Labour plans to give bailiffs powers of forced entry into homes to collect civil debts will be revoked.'

That's the choice Labour totalitarianism or Conservative freedom.

'Brown has been trying to use the tools of state to rig the election since he took over'

Fraser Nelson has a must read piece in The Spectator about the Labour government's propaganda war, do read the whole piece but here's an extract or two:

'Gordon Brown has been shameless in using the tools of state to advance his party political objectives – to him, government is electoral war by other means. Anyone who has turned on a commercial radio station recently will have worked out his latest trick: a mass propaganda splurge before an election campaign. Get on a bus, and it can be 100 percent state adverts – advising how Big Brother will help you get a job, buy a car, see off door-to-door salesmen, give you a job in the prison services – anything you want.

...

As we say in the Spectator’s editorial in tomorrow’s edition, Brown has been trying to use the tools of state to rig the election since he took over. His tactic is to employ as much of the electorate as he can (for every three private sector jobs since 1997, there have been five public sector jobs – a million more state workers) and his propaganda budget is simply another means to achieve the same end.'

A fact completely unconnected with why Labour allowed immigration to increase so much

"Research into voting patterns was conducted for The Electoral Commission in May 2005, just after the last election. The “Black and Minority Ethnic Survey”, conducted by MORI, asked which party respondents had voted for in 2005. Of Caribbean and African voters, 80% had voted Labour, 2-3% Conservative and 5- 11% Liberal Democrat. Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshis voted 56%, 50% and 41% for Labour. The equivalent figures for the Conservatives were 11%, 11% and 9% while Liberal Democrats came in at 14%, 25% and 16%. Mixed and other categories were similar to the Asians."

Thanks to Migration Watch for bringing those figures to my attention.


Somehow I think that Stephen Glover is rather less willing to give the Labour government the benefit of the doubt:

"Using immigration to turn Britain into a nation of Labour voters is so shameful I can hardly believe it

...

Migrants, and to a slightly lesser extent their descendants, are much more likely to vote Labour than for any other party. It seems that one shameful motivation behind New Labour’s open-door immigration policy was to alter the social composition of this country so as to improve the chances of the party being reelected.

...

Remember that in large parts of England Labour has long been losing ground. In 2005, the Tories actually won more votes in England than Labour. As the party’s traditional bases in Scotland and Wales begin to weaken, so it needs more people in England who will naturally vote for it. As they don’t exist, they must be found.

Even as I write these words I can scarcely believe them. That a political party should have put its narrow, selfish interests above those of the country on so enormously important a matter is deeply shocking. To me it is a thousand times more shocking than all the MPs’ expenses fiddles about which we have learned recently."

You can read more about this matter here, here, here and at other places under this search.

“correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”

Last October I wrote about the revelations of Andrew Teather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He claimed that he had proof that Labour's relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

A key passage was that:

"He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.""

At the time the claims of Andrew Teather received less attention than they deserved, the BBC in particular chose to all but ignore them.


Later in October I recorded how Phil Woolas chose to respond to a question posed by Chris Grayling - "I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers."


Today the story moves on to another level as The Telegraph reports that following a Freedom Of Information request by MigrationWatch:

"a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims. "

This story needs to be investigated further and the Labour government pursued over it but I fear that David Cameron still thinks that he can become Prime Minister by being nice and not aggressive. Maybe he will change his mind, today's PMQs would be a good place to start, but I don't think he has the stomach for a proper fight with Gordon Brown and his team.

Meanwhile the BBC have once again chosen to ignore the story on their news pages but do have a magazine type piece entitled "Did immigration transform Britain by accident? " that claims precisely the opposite of what has been revealed recently. David Goodhart claims that

"At no point in the last 12 years does there seem to have been a general discussion in cabinet about the country's immigration strategy.

I have discovered that the final decision to open Britain's labour market to Eastern and Central Europeans was taken by a small group of officials and special advisers before an EU Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels.

It is emblematic of the insouciant way in which the great demographic transformation has occurred.

An accumulation of small decisions, all of them perfectly rational and sensible in their own right, has led to a mighty big - and pretty unpopular - outcome. "

David Goodhart also lists the five main reasons that immigration increased:

"What is more, between 1997 and 2003 there were, I think, five significant government decisions.

First, there was the abolition of the primary purpose rule, very unpopular with South Asians in particular, the repeal of which did have the effect of significantly raising the inward flow of spouses.

Second, there was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which among many other things made it harder to restrict the number of asylum seekers.

Third, there was a liberalisation of student visas which more than doubled to over 130,000 a year. The government has just announced plans to restrict abuse of the system.

Fourth, there was a similar liberalization of work permits.

Fifth, opening the British labour market to people from the new EU states, seven years before any other big EU member. Instead of a few tens of thousands, more than 1 million people came after 2004. "

Oddly I do not recall the BBC reminding people that "there was a liberalisation of student visas which more than doubled to over 130,000 a year" when they reported the Labour government's plans to restrict abuse of this system just last week.


The massive increase in immigration into the UK over the last 13 years is nothing short of scandalous but, if true, the revelations that it was a deliberate policy of the Labour government may take us towards prosecuting leading government ministers for criminal activity.

The "BRIBO Laptop" - "This Bribo laptop is an aspiration, not a pledge. We aspire to send it to you, but if you win it, you may not receive it."

I see that brillo211 (Andrew Neill?) has a sense of humour... They are advertising for sale of Ebay UK 27,000 BRIBO laptops, described thus:

"Here we have a spanking new, gleaming Bribo laptop, complete with instruction sheet showing you where to place your X when the time comes.

The government has declared that it will soon issue 270,000 of these Bribos to their core voters so that they may keep up with their children's school progress on the internet, rather than get up off their sofas and walk down to the parent-teacher meetings and ask. In order to exchange them for tax-free CASH, (to allow access to the things that REALLY matter), the inevitable result will be thousands of Bribos listed on eBay shortly after issue, so I am taking this opportunity to list mine now, before the rush.

Bribo is the latest offering in the "class war" series and will be issued exclusively to "low income" families, (i.e. not much money BEFORE benefits are freely distributed to you), so here is a great opportunity for middle-class, rich buyers, (i.e.anyone with initiative or a bit of cash after having paid swingeing tax and NI and not central within Labour's core vote buyers), to get one as well. Yes, yes, we know that you've already paid for these Bribos out of your hard-earned, heavily-taxed income, but that's not the point - after all, who doesn't want the warm glow of satisfaction that comes from paying for a Bribo, ensuring that the money gets to where it's needed - into the pockets of "low income" families, just in time for the general election.

With the Bribo's browser set to the Labour party home page, this machine is ready to go from the box. Full filters and software included to protect the user from harmful on-line experiences, including landing on any page that we consider to be contrary to Labour party targets and anything that doesn't toe the party line. Any deviation of use from the true purpose of the Bribo will be met with an "off-message".

If you've been happy to let the state control your life for the last twelve years and currently have trouble living without nannying, this is the machine for you.

This whole listing is costing us £300 million, (yes, a great value £1111 per Bribo laptop[*], and about £288 million more than was spent nationally on salt for roads this year but, hey, what's the priority here - getting ever-fewer people to work or getting these Bribos to the people who really matter?), but this listing starts at 99p, no reserve start - possible only because we managed to keep it "off book" through the machinations of a very expensive, very badly negotiated PFI deal.

IMPORTANT NOTE - Terms of this auction:

1) In addition to winner paying final price and postage, a promise has to be made in writing that the winner, (and family), will use their postal vote for Labour at the forthcoming general election. Failure to adhere to this condition will render the listing null and void. (Please refer to the included instruction sheet for guidance on how to comply.)

2) This Bribo laptop is an aspiration, not a pledge. We aspire to send it to you, but if you win it, you may not receive it. Stocks are limited and there's currently a rush to get them to as many "low income" families as possible before the next election is announced. In the case that we are unable to adhere to this aspiration, any moneys that you have paid will not be returned, they will be hosed over poor families or bankers.

3) The first edition Bribo is initially available ONLY to addresses in marginal Labour constituencies where the election result is looking a bit dodgy. If you don't live in such a constituency, then you'll have to wait for the toughened, hard-shell, 2nd version which would be issued to more "low income" families when it appears that things really are getting bad. And we'll just keep dishing out Bribos further and further up the food chain until we see the swing that we deserve.

4) By buying the Bribo, you agree to pay the government an extra 50p a month on your phone bill, ostensibly to allow private telecoms companies to upgrade their infrastructure without recourse to their shareholders and dreadful bankers, but really it's another unavoidable stealth tax, to transfer more money from your pocket to ours.

5) We reserve the right to change policy at any time, especially if polls show us to be pulling well ahead before the next election.

If you're not happy with these terms, please do not bid.

Postage terms:

1) The winning bidder is liable to pay ALL taxes and stealth taxes applicable to their residency - at least 50p in the £, although cash-back on taxes will be made available to "low income" families in the form of a non-means-tested benefit cheque.

2) Where our aspiration can be realised, the Bribo will be despatched in a brown envelope.


For more information on the Bribo, please go to:

http://dailyreferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/first-look-labours-new-free-laptop.html

[*] = If you're a taxpayer who is more concerned about value for money than we are, you cannot bid on this item - it's not for you. However ... the same model under a different branding can be bought at PC World for just £179. The price quoted to us by the preferred supplier was the "John Lewis list" price, which we are more used to dealing with and which we always use as the benchmark when we negotiate such complex PFI deals."

Satire of the highest order... I think from Steve Green of Daily Referendum.