‘Civil War Is Coming to Europe’ Warns German Politician

Supporters of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party wave German flags as they walk behind a barrage of riot police during a demonstration on September 1, 2018 in Chemnitz, eastern Germany. - The demonstration was organised in a reaction to a knife killing, allegedly by an Iraqi and a …
JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty

“Civil war is coming to Europe,” a German city politician told me this week.

I shan’t mention his name – it was an off-the-record briefing and, anyway, in Germany there are penalties for this kind of frankness.

But he was only repeating what plenty of other people say in private in Germany where I’ve spent the last couple of weeks, soaking up the atmosphere, people-watching, gauging the public mood in the wake of Angela Merkel’s open invitation to perhaps three million immigrants – most of them fighting-age males from Muslim countries.

Three million is higher than the figure admitted by the German authorities, which tend to put it closer to 1.5 million. My source tells me the higher number is closer to the mark.

I was staying in Frankfurt, not one of the places hardest hit by the immigration wave. Partly this is because its traditions as an “open city” date back centuries so, culturally it has always been better attuned to accepting and absorbing immigrants from all backgrounds. Partly it’s because, being Germany’s financial centre, it tends to attract the better educated sort of immigrant.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

“Ich bin ein Berliner”

JFK’s words (which actually mean “I am a doughnut”, but never mind) have been popular since the latest terrorist atrocity – as of course they inevitably would. We all know well enough, by now, the standard operational procedure that all right-thinking people adopt whenever someone from the Religion of Peace commits another mass murder.

First, the snappy hashtag phrase of solidarity: #jesuischarlie #prayfororlando#ichbineinberliner

Then the decorating of your Facebook/Twitter profile in the colours of the flag of the latest victim country. So: red, gold, and black are this month’s red, white, and blue.

Then the candlelit vigils.

Then the hipster playing “Imagine” on a wonky piano in an impromptu and entirely unexpected gesture near the scene of the atrocity.

Then the visit by politicians vowing that the people will remain defiant in the face of this outrage.

Then the good news story about some Muslims who were brave and/or nice – usually members of the persecuted Ahmadi branch of Islam – which proves that it is a Religion of Peace really.

Then the caravan of grief moves on. Till the next atrocity. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

We’ve all noticed this stuff, many times over. And most of us find it properly sick-making. But there’s one other element in the standard left-liberal playbook response to these terrorist atrocities which, I think, hasn’t been widely noted yet. And I think it should be because it’s as least as disgusting and lame and feeble and hypocritical and dishonest and cowardly and succour-to-the-enemy-giving as any of the responses I’ve listed above.

I’m talking about the Blame Nigel Farage response.

We saw a perfect example of this in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin atrocity earlier this week when the chattering classes on social media very quickly made up their hive mind who the guilty party was in the Christmas market massacre-by-truck.

Was it, perhaps, the ISIS-inspired terrorist who killed a Polish truck driver, commandeered his vehicle, drove to a crowded Christmas market in the centre of Berlin, turned off the headlights and then accelerated into the crowd of men, women, and children, killing at least a dozen and maiming many more?

Of course not!

The very worst, most evil and culpable person in the world the day after the Berlin massacre was – in the view of progressive types on Twitter and on the BBC and in The Guardian – Nigel Farage.

But what could Nigel Farage possibly have done wrong that was worse than killing lots of people going about their shopping in a Christmas market in Germany?

Well, he’d done the terrible thing of saying this in a tweet:

Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy.
You might be wondering what the problem is here. Me too. I think it’s perfectly arguable, indeed entirely reasonable, to suggest that Angela Merkel’s bizarre experiment to invite over a million “refugees” of mostly Muslim extraction into her country was primarily responsible for this terrorist attack. Thinking this doesn’t make you a bad person or an “Islamophobe”. It’s a simple numbers game: the more Muslims you invite in the greater the likelihood that among them will be unfriendly ones bent on doing great harm.

But to appreciate this basic, obvious truth is to think clearly and logically – which is not something the liberal-left likes to do. What it much prefers to engage in is emotive demagoguery, dubious moral equivalence and cynical smearing of the type we see expressed in this response to Farage’s tweet by a left-wing activist called Brendan Cox.

@Nigel_Farage blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That’s a slippery slope Nigel

Cox is keen to promote the idea that extremists from the “far right” are just as big a threat as “Islamist” ones.

On the day after the massacre, he tweeted:

Far right &Islamist extremists share same hate driven psychology, intolerance towards difference& tendency to violence. We must defeat both
Well, it’s a point of view, certainly. But if you ask me it’s a crass, ignorant, and irresponsible one. What on earth does the “far right” have to do with a mass murder of innocent shoppers committed by a follower of Islamic State? And how does the comparison add anything useful to the debate? It doesn’t: it does the exact opposite. It’s a classic piece of liberal-left “whataboutery”, of intellectual evasion, of progressive smearing.

“Right wing extremists are just as big a problem as Islamist terrorists,” it seeks to tell us.

And: “Let’s not seek to point the finger of blame at any ideology in particular.”

And: “But do let’s blame the kind of people who think mass immigration is a bad thing because their ‘intolerance towards difference’ is what’s really causing all this violence.”

So I’m really not surprised that Nigel Farage chose to take Cox to task on LBC radio.

Hours after the Twitter exchange between the two, Mr Farage went on LBC radio and said: “Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox, he backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.”

What does surprise me – though it shouldn’t: I’ve seen often enough how these people roll – was the speed with which the news cycle shifted its attention. One minute we were being invited – quite properly – to focus on the latest appalling atrocity committed in the name of the Religion of Peace. The next – ooh look, a dickie bird! – everyone from the BBC and The Guardian, to various rentaquote Labour MPs, plus the usual suspects on Twitter had decided that the real story of the day was how disgusting and culpable people on the right were, especially Nigel Farage.

MP Tracy Brabin, who replaced Mrs Cox in her Batley and Spen constituency, said: “Beggars belief… A new low for Farage.”

Chris Bryant, the Rhondda MP and former shadow Commons leader, said: “The sheer nastiness of Farage sometimes takes my breath away.”

Chesterfield MP Toby Perkins added: “When your entire career has been built on hate, not hope, it perhaps shouldn’t shock me, but Farage still sinks lower than I’d have believed.”

Jess Phillips, MP for Birmingham Yardley, wrote on Twitter: “I hope Farage never ever feels the pain we feel about Jo, because unlike him I am not a monster.”

Again, it’s worth asking: what had Nigel Farage done or said wrong to justify phrases like “sheer nastiness” and “monster”? And if Nigel Farage is a “monster”, what term would you use for the Tunisian guy who murdered that Polish truck driver and then deliberately ploughed the vehicle into a Christmas market full of kids?

I think we need to be absolutely clear here: these people have no claim whatsoever to the moral high ground. They are stupid, wrong, and evil.

In December 2016, as throughout this year and last and the one before, innocents have been butchered by a merciless creed which deliberately sets out to kill and maim by whatever means. And instead of facing up to this threat and asking important questions like “how did this come about?” and “how can we deal with it?”, all these left-wing virtue-signallers in the Labour party, at The Guardian, at the BBC, and on Twitter want to do is duck the issue by pointing in the direction of their favourite bugbear “the far right” instead.

Here is Owen Jones playing the game in The Guardian:

No more pussyfooting around: Nigel Farage and his associates have poisoned our country’s political culture, and it’s time to push back. Their offensive – in every sense of the word – has been so swift, so devastating, that we risk normalising it.

Here is the left-wing comic Mark Steel trying it on in the Independent with some satire which works really well if you’re a doctrinaire left-winger and Hope Not Hate fan who believes Brexit was a disaster and that what Europe needs right now is more unchecked immigration, from the Middle East and North Africa especially.

What has fuelled their moral indignation is the fact that Brendan Cox is the widower of Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered in the streets during the EU referendum campaign by a loner with neo-Nazi sympathies called Thomas Mair.

I have never spoken to, read, or met anyone on the Brexit side of the argument who was any less appalled by Jo Cox’s murder than people on the Remain side were. Yet ever since her senseless death at the hands of a vile individual, elements in the Remain camp have sought to pin her murder on the “rhetoric” used by the Brexit camp, especially by people like Nigel Farage.

(This is a common trope of the regressive left – and has been since at least the 2011 shooting of Arizona Democrat politician Gabrielle Giffords, which the liberal media also did its best to blame on right-wing rhetoric rather than on a sad, confused, angry nut-job.)

Probably the most egregious example of this was a piece by David Aaronovitch in The Times, which I wrote about under the headline “Aaronovitch: Brexit campaigners kinda, sorta killed Jo Cox MP”

Few people have pushed this notion more assiduously than Brendan Cox himself – who donated a large chunk of the memorial fund raised in Jo Cox’s honour to the dubious charity Hope Not Hate, whose speciality is to promulgate this same misleading line – that the “far right” is an equivalent threat to fundamentalist Islam.

No doubt in doing so Brendan Cox believes he is honouring his wife’s memory.

The problem is that the “good work” Brendan Cox believes his wife was doing before she died is anathema to over half the country – and indeed to millions of people in Europe whose countries have been swamped by the kind of mass immigration that the Coxes believed would be good for them.

That’s why the Remainers lost the referendum: because, contrary to the assertions of campaigners like Jo and Brendan Cox, British people had had quite enough of unchecked immigration and could not see the benefits of remaining shackled to a sclerotic, anti-democratic, supra-national bureaucracy within the European Union.

However, the response of the losing Remainers (the 48 per cent) has not been to accept with good grace the democratic will expressed by the Brexiteers (the 52 per cent). Rather it has been to fight, fight, fight the result with whatever means, fair or foul, come to hand and to try to ensure that Brexit never happens.

Among the fouler means the Remoaners have sought to use to get their way is to try to blacken the motives and character of anyone who voted Brexit, while claiming for themselves the moral high ground as ordinary decent people who represent the “British values” of tolerance and fairness and who are appalled by the supposed outbreak of post-Brexit “hate crimes” in a country they claim not to recognise anymore.

It goes without saying that this is pure propaganda based on the flimsiest of evidence, most of it anecdotal or simply made up.

But it’s a line that has caught the imaginations of the losing Remain camp and their friends in the media, not least thanks to Brendan Cox himself.

Whatever phrase you use to describe Cox’s activities since his wife’s murder, “maintaining a dignified silence” wouldn’t be one of them. This was especially noticeable in the tense days before the referendum vote, when he invoked his late wife’s memory to promote this popular Remain trope: that the language being used by the Brexit camp was inflammatory and dangerous and somehow unBritish.

“I think she was very worried that the language was coarsening, that people were being driven to take more extreme positions, that people didn’t work with each other as individuals and on issues, it was all much too tribal and unthinking,” Mr Cox said.

“She was particularly worried – we talked about this regularly – about the direction, not just in the UK but globally, the direction of politics at the moment, particularly around creating division and playing on people’s worst fears rather than their best instincts.”

He has continued to promote this view ever since – taking advantage of the significantly higher media profile which he gained as a result of his wife’s death and finding a ready audience at parti-pris, pro-Remain media organisations like the BBC for his left-leaning, pro-immigration, anti-Brexit opinions. This Christmas he has been given still more space to promote his views by Channel 4 which has chosen him to broadcast their Alternative Christmas Message.

Is there, perhaps, some special rule whereby if you have been tragically widowed, you get a free pass to spout unchallenged whatever views you like in public – even if the cause you are supporting is potentially very dangerous and certainly very offensive to well over half the population?

Brendan Cox’s many admirers in the Remain camp – on the regressive left and in Hope Not Hate most especially – would seem to think so.

I got a small taste of this myself when, at the height of the Farage/Cox spat, I tweeted:

“When are we allowed to say that Brendan Cox is a total arse?”
There are worse insults in the English lexicon than calling someone a “total arse” – as I was reminded by the large number of responses I got from Hope Not Hate virtue-signallers telling me as I was a “c***”. My view on this remains as it was when I tweeted it: that if you’re going to express suspect opinions in the public arena, then you should expect to be called on them, no matter how tragic your personal circumstances. Of course, Cox deserves sympathy as a widower; this does not, however, give him carte blanche to promulgate – uncriticised – the kind of political viewpoint which, unfortunately, goes a long way towards explaining the wave of terrorism we are experiencing in Europe today.

For about 24 hours, I experienced what Nigel Farage has to put up with pretty much every day of his life – and has done for the last 25 years. Wave after wave of self-righteous lefties pouring vitriol, wishing death on me, calling me the worst names they could think of in their limited imaginations.

I’m perfectly OK with the insults. I’m used to it. It’s a technique popular with the regressive left known as “point and shriek” and “isolate and swarm”. The purpose – as Vox Day explains in this SJW attack survival guide – is to frighten you, isolate you, and silence you. And the key thing is to recognise it for what it is and not be upset by it – and definitely not apologise.

But what I cannot tolerate or forgive – and nor should you – is when these scum-sucking regressive types think they have the right to judge and to take the moral high ground.

Farage was absolutely right when he said in that tweet that the massacre in Berlin was a direct result of the Merkel legacy.

John R Bradley puts it well in the Mail:

The undeniable reality is that Europe’s breathtakingly reckless open-door immigration policy has provided a perfect cover for Islamic State to further its bloody, anti-Christian agenda.

Undeniable and real it may be – but the regressive left shows, as yet, absolutely no sign of accepting it or engaging with it.

This is why I have a very special Christmas message to all those people who attacked Nigel Farage for telling the truth about the Berlin massacre, and to all those who called me a “c***” for being rude about Brendan Cox.

You are the reason Donald Trump won the US Presidential election; you are the reason 17.4 million people voted for Brexit; you are the reason the European Union is collapsing. You are hateful, bigoted and – for all your hypocritical pretences to the contrary – fascistic.

You are an intellectually spavined, moronic, self-righteous and disgusting losers who have been shown by the events of 2016 to be on the wrong side of history. There is nothing noble or worthy or decent about your ranting rage: it is the fury of a vampire stuck with a stake, realising as he shrieks his last that finally the good guys have ended his reign of terror.

I leave you, as a treat, with the delicious words of Owen Jones in the Guardian – as demented a case of psychological projection as it has ever been my amused privilege to witness.

We face a great danger, and not even those who will suffer because of it have realised just how grave it is. Intolerance and hatred have been legitimised across the western world. Dissent is becoming treason. That is bad enough. But there are other violent extremists who are being both radicalised and legitimised across the west. If we don’t take a stand now, new dark chapters are soon to arrive.

No, Owen, my fluffy little ephebe. It’s not my side that is guilty of any of that. It’s your side that has been doing this for decades – closing down free speech, demeaning people who dare to speak out, promoting hatred and violence while pretending to preach tolerance (so long as it’s tolerance of things you think it’s OK to tolerate).

You are unconscionable scum. Your philosophy has been responsible for causing untold misery across the world for over a century. The idea that any of you are able to take the moral high ground on anything is as risible as your threadbare arguments.

Still, the great thing is that you guys finally lost in 2016. Happy 2017 everyone – it can only get better from here on in.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Why It’s Great That the Dalai Lama Is Channelling Donald Trump

It’s even better, almost, than the Queen emerging as a closet Brexit fan.

If Donald Trump had said something like that (as of course he does all the time) half the world would have dismissed him as a malevolent, heartless, rabble-rousing troll.

But it’s much harder to do that with the Dalai Lama. The thing he’s famous for more than anything is really, really caring about stuff – the world’s poor and oppressed especially.

If you were to ask Benedict Cumberbatch or Juliet Stevenson or Kate Moss’s nearly-father-in-law Richard Curtis  or any of the other numerous members of the Wankerati who want to welcome more refugees into Europe what they thought of the Dalai Lama I can guarantee they’d have nothing but kind words to say.

In fact, it’s quite hard to find anyone who doesn’t like him:

The Dalai Lama, however, was recently named the most popular world leader, with over three-quarters of adults (78%) on average having a good opinion of him.

So when an all round caring nice guy [I went to his 80th birthday party at Glastonbury last year. Can confirm: he’s great. We sang Happy Birthday to him. Patti Smith gave him a cake. And he blessed us all] like the Dalai Lama says that Europe has a refugee problem it’s probably a sign that he has thought through the issue carefully and that he’s right, rather than a sign that he’s a secret Nazi.

Sure, as he makes clear, he cares about refugees:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Austria Gets the Extremist President It Didn’t Deserve

We were continually assured by the left-liberal media how awful it would be if the (supposed) “far-right” candidate Norbert Hofer won.

But actually the victory of Green candidate Alexander Van der Bellen – on, likely, a rigged ballot – is far, far worse.

It’s bad for democracy: Hofer lost by just 31,000 of the 4.64 million votes cast. Suspicions are bound to fall on the 700,000 votes cast in the postal ballot, which appears to be what swung it for Van der Bellen. But postal votes as we know – especially from the experience of Muslim-dominated constituencies in the UK – are prone to rampant fraud. Austrians who voted for Hofer are talking about “betrug” – fraud – and this may well be more than sour grapes. In some areas there was a remarkable 146.9 percent voter turnout. This stinks of a stitch up by the bien-pensant elite in unholy alliance with the immigrant bloc vote. As with the EU, so it is increasingly in national elections: the social democratic ruling class refuses to listen to the people.

It’s bad for social cohesion. Figures from Der Standard newspaper, show that university-educated voters split 81-19 for Van der Bellen, while lower-skilled workers split 86-14 for Hofer. What does this tell us? That the native working class in Austria – as in the US and across much of Europe – are angry about immigration and feel unrepresented by the liberal political elite. That academe is now such a hot bed of left-wing indoctrination and political correctness that the “educated” would rather keep drinking the Kool-Aid than think for themselves. This cannot end happily. Indeed, it was under similar circumstances in the 1930s that another Austrian-born citizen, considerably more “far-right” than Norbert Hofer, began his rise to power.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Green Europe Is Killing 40,000 Poor People a Year

That’s just the number estimated to have died in the winter of 2014 because they were unable to afford fuel bills driven artificially high by renewable energy tariffs.

But the real death toll will certainly be much higher when you take into account the air pollution caused when Germany decided to abandon nuclear power after Fukushima and ramp up its coal-burning instead; and also when you consider the massive increase in diesel pollution –  the result of EU-driven anti-CO2 policies – which may be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths a year.

But even that 40,000 figure is disgraceful enough, given that greenies are always trying to take the moral high ground and tell us that people who oppose their policies are uncaring and selfish.

It comes from an article in the German online magazine FOCUS about Energiewende (Energy Transition) – the disastrous policy I mentioned earlier this week whereby Germany is committed to abandoning cheap, effective fossil fuel power and converting its economy to expensive, inefficient renewables (aka unreliables) instead.

According to FOCUS around ten percent of the European population are now living in ‘energy poverty’ because electricity prices have risen, on average, by 42 percent in the last eight years. In Germany alone this amounts to seven million households.

The article is titled: The grand electricity lie: why electricity is becoming a luxury.

The reason, of course, is that green energy policies have made it that way. Many of these have emanated from the European Union, which in turn has taken its cue from the most Green-infested nation in Europe – Germany.

Germany has long been obsessed with all things environmental. Besides having invented the dodgy ‘science’ of ecology in the 1880s it was also, of course, between 1933 and 1945 the home of Europe’s official “Greenest government ever” – the first to ban smoking on public transport, an enthusiastic supporter of organic food, national parks and population control.

The Greens have also since the early Eighties been arguably the most influential party in Germany. Though their percentage of the vote has rarely risen above the 10 percent mark, they have punched above their weight either as a coalition partner in government or as a pressure group outside it.

For example, the reason that after Fukushima, Chancellor Angela Merkel completely changed Germany’s policy on nuclear power was her terror of the Greens who were suddenly polling 25 percent of the national vote.

It was the Greens too who were responsible for Energiewende – the policy which is turning Germany into the opposite of what most of us imagine it to be: not the economic powerhouse we’ve been taught to admire all these years, but a gibbering basket case.

This becomes clear in an investigation by the German newspaper Handelsblatt, which reports the horrendous industrial decline brought about by green energy policies.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Labour’s Hypocrisy on Immigration Is Breathtaking

EVERY time I pop to the shops, I’m reminded that the Britain of my childhood has gone for ever.

These days I’m as likely to hear Bulgarian, Polish or Romanian as English. And while I have no objections to any of these no doubt decent, hard-working, law-abiding people individually, I cannot help but feel the country I grew up in is no longer my own.The burgeoning popularity of Ukip suggests that I’m not alone. But until recently it wasn’t something you could admit in public without being called “racist”. This was one of the Labour party’s most successful and dangerous achievements in the wake of Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech.For four decades, Labour created a climate in which even to question the idea that mass immigration, “multiculturalism” and “diversity” were an unmitigated good was tantamount to being a member of the National Front.Typical of this was Labour’s response during the 2005 general election campaign to a speech by the then Conservative leader Michael Howard in which he said: “It’s not racist to talk about immigration. It’s not racist to criticise the system.

It’s not racist to want to limit the numbers. It’s just plain common sense.” According to Labour spokesman Peter Hain these were “scurrilous, Rightwing, ugly tactics”.

But will Hain, I wonder, condemn the comments by a senior politician earlier this week that “It isn’t racist to be worried about immigration or to call for immigration reform”?

Somehow I’m guessing not. Though the words sound remarkably similar to Howard’s the MP speaking them this time was none other than Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. As breathtaking hypocrisy goes, this takes some beating.

Not only does it breach Labour leader Ed Miliband’s pledge last week that: “What we will never do is try to out-Ukip Ukip” but it is also an outrageous attempt to duck responsibility for a crisis which is of Labour’s making.

The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government

House of Lords

Between the 1997 arrival of Labour’s Tony Blair as prime minister and the departure in 2010 of Labour’s Gordon Brown, immigration in Britain soared by 45 per cent – from around 327,000 immigrants per annum to 596,000.And those are just the ones officially recorded by the Office For National Statistics.Once you add illegal immigrants that figure may double to more than one million a year.

“The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government’s Managed Migration policies.”

That’s a quote from a 2008 House of Lords economic affairs select committee telling us something that Labour is now very reluctant to admit: that the 2.3 million migrants added to the UK population between 2000 and 2009 didn’t arrive here as a result of some forgivable border control oversight.

They came as a direct consequence of Labour policy. We know this because of a Labour whistleblower called Andrew Neather – a former speechwriter to Tony Blair, as well as Labour home secretaries David Blunkett and Jack Straw – who later became a newspaper columnist.

In one of his articles he revealed that Labour’s wholehearted embrace of mass immigration had a “driving political purpose” – to “make the UK truly multicultural”.

Read the rest at The Express

Related posts:

  1. Ayn Rand’s books are deliciously anti-statist, but her philosophy is borderline Nazi
  2. Say what you like about Prince Andrew, at least he wasn’t caught posing in his underpants
  3. In praise of Lord Tebbit
  4. General Election 2010: My mate Dave…

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Five Reasons Why the Conservatives Deserve to Lose the Next Election

The scale of the problem

Please: can someone stop his job being so ludicrously easy?

1. Cowardice. Whose bright idea was it to ban Nigel Farage from speaking at the Tory conference in Manchester? And what kind of signal does this send out to all those waverers in the party wondering whether or not to transfer the allegiances to UKIP?

“We’re so concerned that Nigel Farage might tell you stuff that you want to hear that we’ve decided not to let you hear it.”

2. Spinelessness. Remember all that talk about the importance of localism? Remember all those principled-sounding statements we’ve had from the likes of John Hayes and Eric Pickles that in future if communities don’t want wind turbines imposed on them then they won’t have to? Well, it seems all that has gone by the board. No doubt under combined pressure from all the energy companies (whose beneficiaries range from the deputy prime minister’s wife to the prime minister’s father in law) and the ideological greens at DECC, Cameron’s faux-conservatives have caved yet again. I’m told by planning experts that Eric Pickles’s vaunted amendments will make not the blindest bit of difference to communities trying to fight wind turbines. So this betrayal of their natural constituency in the shires will help the Conservatives how, exactly?

3. Dishonesty. Immigration, the Conservatives have twigged, is a key issue to many voters. Hence those crass, ugly billboards. Hence scary Immigration Minister Mark Harper’s tough-sounding statements about how the Coalition is really on top of the problem. Except as Andrew Gilligan revealed in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph it’s all a nonsense. Our statistics on immigration are so unreliable as to be meaningless. I don’t know about you but I don’t like being taken for a fool by a party angling for my vote.

4. Cynicism. Much sense has been talked by those who understand the internet – among them, Mic Wright and Willard Foxton, both of this parish – about the illiberalism and counterproductivity of Cameron’s grandstanding crusade against all manner of online pornography. If it makes no sense, why is he doing it? Why out of a cynical attempt to win the approval of the leftist harpies at MumsNet, of course. Sorry but I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that government policy should be based on high principle and sound evidence, not on cheap, cynical bids to appeal to socialistic control freaks outside your natural constituency. But then, Dave does think of himself as the “heir to Blair” doesn’t he?

5. Incompetence. Do you know what, though? I think I could still forgive the Tories all of the above if they’d at least managed to do the one thing Tories are always supposed to be good at: undoing the economic mess created by the previous socialist administration.

But this “economic recovery” we’re allegedly experiencing is, like “green jobs”, a chimera. Liam Halligan doesn’t believe in it.

(Nor, suspects Rob Tyler, is it any different in the US.)

And no, this isn’t just a cyclical thing or a world-economy thing. It’s a direct consequence of Cameron’s and Osborne’s failure to acknowledge the scale of the problem and deal with it.

The framework required to support meaningful growth is simply not there. We are still spending beyond our means, the national debt is still ruinous, we still have a massive balance of trade deficit, and the government seems in no hurry to do anything about it. A wrecking ball should have been taken to New Labour’s policies by now, given that they’re largely responsible for the mess we’re in. Instead, David Cameron is like a man who’s been put in charge of the family Christmas and doesn’t want to upset the old’uns by changing too much. Apart from walnuts in the sprouts and a new board game for after dinner, it’s the same as it ever was.

Related posts:

  1. Don’t expect the BBC to tell you, but Ukip is on the march
  2. Nigel Farage – the only politician who dares say what we’re thinking
  3. Unless the Conservatives come clean about the energy mess they created, they will never deserve our vote
  4. Should Morrissey join Ukip?

2 thoughts on “Five reasons why the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election”

  1. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:27 pmThe biggest problem most politicians have is that they won’t tell hysterical protestors that they’re, on this issue, if not in life in general, in need of being sectioned for the safety of society. Years of Animal Rights, kibosh Bridgenorth Power Station, no tracking, no this, no that: sometimes you JUST HAVE TO DECIDE. The odds are stacked against the honest politician, because the aim of the media is to inflame, not to support good decisions. The aim of the ueber rich is to install incompetent blackmailable leaders and as we all know, the media is their domain, isn’t it?The second biggest problem is that those who won’t suffer near armageddon are fairly comfortable with sweeping everything away. They wouldn’t be if their children weren’t getting fed, the bills were months late, their jobs were all gone and their dignity destroyed. I only respect calls for radical destruction by those who will suffer with everyone else. I”ve never read anything by anyone to say that anyone is either that brave, stupid or selfish (if they have kids). It’s always the rich who call for the poor to suffer. If they called for themselves to suffer just one little bit, people might listen to them. HS2? NIMBY city. Windmills? NIMBY city. Fracking in Sussex? NIMBY city. The list is endless. Go try poverty: you’d soon be less radical….The third biggest problem is political parties. They are the home for the never-had-a-job-in-the-real-world SPADs. How can you POSSIBLY know how to run the country across three or four generations if you’ve never worked for one generation in the real world?? This is not the 19th century and the British Empire. This is globalised Britain, tied to the EU as one harridan parent and the USA as the other. What’s needed is the Harry Houdini escapology to escape both without being trafficked by other evil monsters. If you really are so much of a swivel-eyed loon as to see America as solely a force for good in the world, then you really do need to grow up. America is 1984 imposed on the world: a global spying behemoth, stealing the world’s assets without mercy whilst retaining a constitution it hasn’t upheld since 1945. A country infested with organised criminality and an out-of-control military-industrial complex and investment banking system. It can still come good, but the odds are on it becoming a fascist dictatorship. It’s about time you saw America’s dark side, instead of staying fantasised by Hollywood’s misdirection. It might be better if we ditched English as the formal language: then America wouldn’t be so obsessed with us. They don’t seem quite so obsessed with Norway or Switzerland, do they?? They need to see a shrink and forget about the War of Independence. None of us over here had anything to do with it and we’re sick and tired of their slave-owners demeanour to the UK. We have contempt for the way they dealt with Katrina. Contempt. Their city governance is a shambles and most of them are about to go bust. Wall Street is organised mafia and no-one has the power to stop it. There is no value whatever added to the economy by Wall Street. Nothing it does couldn’t be done as well, if not better, by 50 Warren Buffett-like folks, one in each state, in terms of investment decisions. All the speculation would be got rid of and ordinary folks on Main Street could safely deposit their savings in thrifts again, without fear of getting raped by descendents of Solly Brothers and the other Wall Street Crime Families who carried out heists that make Fort Knox look like a stroll in the Park……..and are lionized for having done so.Agree with you about UKIP, however a twit today has probably given Nigel Farage more media time than he’s had in weeks. All he needs next is a joint announcement of Boris’ latest affair along with a dalliance of one of his candidates and he can say: ‘See – we’re just like Boris, who got re-elected as Mayor of London!’

    I’d like to write another one about why the Labour Party don’t deserve to win too.

    But I would also like you to actually start mapping out what a detailed UKIP manifesto might look like.

    I won’t vote for them in 2015 as a protest. I’ll only vote for them if their manifesto is credible, costed and free of fascism.

    They have two years to produce one.

  2. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:27 pmThe biggest problem most politicians have is that they won’t tell hysterical protestors that they’re, on this issue, if not in life in general, in need of being sectioned for the safety of society. Years of Animal Rights, kibosh Bridgenorth Power Station, no tracking, no this, no that: sometimes you JUST HAVE TO DECIDE. The odds are stacked against the honest politician, because the aim of the media is to inflame, not to support good decisions. The aim of the ueber rich is to install incompetent blackmailable leaders and as we all know, the media is their domain, isn’t it?The second biggest problem is that those who won’t suffer near armageddon are fairly comfortable with sweeping everything away. They wouldn’t be if their children weren’t getting fed, the bills were months late, their jobs were all gone and their dignity destroyed. I only respect calls for radical destruction by those who will suffer with everyone else. I”ve never read anything by anyone to say that anyone is either that brave, stupid or selfish (if they have kids). It’s always the rich who call for the poor to suffer. If they called for themselves to suffer just one little bit, people might listen to them. HS2? NIMBY city. Windmills? NIMBY city. Fracking in Sussex? NIMBY city. The list is endless. Go try poverty: you’d soon be less radical….The third biggest problem is political parties. They are the home for the never-had-a-job-in-the-real-world SPADs. How can you POSSIBLY know how to run the country across three or four generations if you’ve never worked for one generation in the real world?? This is not the 19th century and the British Empire. This is globalised Britain, tied to the EU as one harridan parent and the USA as the other. What’s needed is the Harry Houdini escapology to escape both without being trafficked by other evil monsters. If you really are so much of a swivel-eyed loon as to see America as solely a force for good in the world, then you really do need to grow up. America is 1984 imposed on the world: a global spying behemoth, stealing the world’s assets without mercy whilst retaining a constitution it hasn’t upheld since 1945. A country infested with organised criminality and an out-of-control military-industrial complex and investment banking system. It can still come good, but the odds are on it becoming a fascist dictatorship. It’s about time you saw America’s dark side, instead of staying fantasised by Hollywood’s misdirection. It might be better if we ditched English as the formal language: then America wouldn’t be so obsessed with us. They don’t seem quite so obsessed with Norway or Switzerland, do they?? They need to see a shrink and forget about the War of Independence. None of us over here had anything to do with it and we’re sick and tired of their slave-owners demeanour to the UK. We have contempt for the way they dealt with Katrina. Contempt. Their city governance is a shambles and most of them are about to go bust. Wall Street is organised mafia and no-one has the power to stop it. There is no value whatever added to the economy by Wall Street. Nothing it does couldn’t be done as well, if not better, by 50 Warren Buffett-like folks, one in each state, in terms of investment decisions. All the speculation would be got rid of and ordinary folks on Main Street could safely deposit their savings in thrifts again, without fear of getting raped by descendents of Solly Brothers and the other Wall Street Crime Families who carried out heists that make Fort Knox look like a stroll in the Park……..and are lionized for having done so.Agree with you about UKIP, however a twit today has probably given Nigel Farage more media time than he’s had in weeks. All he needs next is a joint announcement of Boris’ latest affair along with a dalliance of one of his candidates and he can say: ‘See – we’re just like Boris, who got re-elected as Mayor of London!’

    I’d like to write another one about why the Labour Party don’t deserve to win too.

    But I would also like you to actually start mapping out what a detailed UKIP manifesto might look like.

    I won’t vote for them in 2015 as a protest. I’ll only vote for them if their manifesto is credible, costed and free of fascism.

    They have two years to produce one.

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Lying Is Not the Way to Defeat the BNP

Do you remember earlier this month when the Government “proved” that there is “no bias in the allocation of social housing to immigrants”? I do, because Radio 4 didn’t stop crowing about it all day.

“So this totally nails once and for all the evil and racist myth that white, indigenous populations are discriminated against by housing officers,” ran the general tenor of Radio 4’s – and for that matter, all the print media’s – reporting of the issue. “Which means that not only are white, working class people even thicker and more wrong than we thought. But also, very probably, that ethnic communities and immigrants are more delightful and vibrant and generally cherishable than we had hitherto imagined.”

One problem with this factoid (which was announced with great fanfare by the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in a report on July 7) is that it has no scientific, statistical or evidential basis whatsoever.

We now know this because a leading statistical analyst, Professor Mervyn Stone of University College, London, has done the homework the news outlets which uncritically regurgitated the EHRC’s nonsense should have done at the time.

His conclusion? That “the figures that EHRC has disseminated as if they were evidence for the claim are of zero inferential value.”

They are meaningless because they break one of the cardinal statistical rules of failing to compare like with like:

“In support of its claim, EHRC misrepresents the meaning of two factual assertions:

“1. That in 2007 ‘less than two per cent’ (1.8%) of social housing was occupied by migrants who arrived after 2002.
2. That ‘nine out of ten’ (87.8%) such homes were occupied by people born in the UK.”

“To make any sense at all, a comparison has to be like-with-like, but this contrast is no such thing.”

“In 2007, the social housing stock was four million of which 72,000 (1.8%) were occupied by migrants and 3,500,000 (87.8%) by UK born. To estimate the chance of a new-migrant applicant getting a home, you would have to divide the 72,000 by the total number of migrant applicants entitled to housing. To estimate the comparable chance for the UK-born, you would first have to establish the number allocated between 2002 and 2007, before dividing it by the number of UK-born applicants for the same period.”

“No calculation of that sort was done for the EHRC study. In fact, the extra data that would be needed to do it are nowhere to be found in the EHRC report. If it were done, the correction would almost certainly reduce the gap between the 1.8% and the 87.8%. Could it even be reversed and accepted as evidence against the EHRC claim? That is a possibility because, as the EHRC report concedes, ‘most new migrants have no entitlement to housing’ and because most of the 3,500,000 homes occupied by the UK-born will have been allocated before 2002.”

The weasel phrase which should have alerted us to this skullduggery, says the Professor, is the EHRC’s claim that its researchers “found no evidence to support the perception that new migrants are getting priority over UK born residents”.

“We have found no evidence that….” Yes, now I think it about it, its a lawyerly formulation you hear being used an awful lot by government ministers, quangocrats and liberal-left fellow-travellers on programmes like Today and Any Questions whenever they’re trying to wriggle out of a well-justified criticism.

This puts their critics in an impossible position: how can they ask for evidence that there is no evidence?

Civitas, the think tank which commissioned Professor Stone’s report, has now made a formal complaint to the UK Statistics Authority asking it to appraise the reliability of the statistical methods used by the report and the statistical reasoning that underlies its claims.

As Civitas’s director David Green rightly says: “Government agencies have a duty to use public funds to commission objective research but the EHRC has failed the meet even the minimal standards of statistical rigour that the public is entitled to expect.”

Fat lot of good his complaint will do. A lie is half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on. The Labour regime knows this. God how its politically correct Quangos know this! And they will go on lying and lying with virtual impunity till the happy day they’re booted out office.

Related posts:

  1. Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again
  2. Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’
  3. How can you tell when Dave Cameron’s lying?
  4. Lying climate scientists lie again – about death threats, this time

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations