Mass Immigration was a Labour core policy

This was the week that Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time and there have been the predictable recriminations from mainstream politicians on whose fault it is that the BNP have amassed a degree of support. Of course the proximate cause of that has been the huge rise in immigration that Labour allowed over the last decade. Now it has emerged that this wasn't a mistake. It was deliberate policy, decided at the highest level for purely political reasons. Apparently the idea was to make Britain more multicultural and so somehow marginalise the Right, the Tories that is not the BNP because before Labour started on this crazy course of action the BNP was absolutely nowhere. This is a disgrace, an appalling abuse of power, gerrymandering a whole country for political reasons. It has also backfired spectacularly in both policy and political terms. The unrestricted immigration policy was ended last year, but the government couldn't claim much credit for that without explaining what they had been doing up to that point. Meanwhile, the BNP has gained the most support in traditional Labour areas, displacing the people's party as the natural choice for some white working-class voters. The immigration debate has killed multiculturalism as a general philosophy and the trend in British politics is and will be for tighter immigration controls. So, by abusing their power Labour have lost their own argument and gutted their own support.

That's justice at least.

Gordon Brown and Labour give us the worst Recession ever

It gives me no pleasure to write this, but Labour's hollow boasts that Britain is better placed that other countries to recover from the recession was today exposed as wishful thinking. With six quarters of economic contraction, this is now the worst recession since records began.

Gordon Brown had calculated that he could be the optimist to David Cameron's pessimist, and so sound hopeful against the voice of doom. The continuing recession wrecks that strategy because David Cameron sounds now like the realist and Gordon Brown sounds as if he has been at the drinks cabinet. My prediction is that Labour will tack away from the economy for the next few weeks in the hope that people forget government claims of imminent recovery. Expect the smokescreens to start emerging from no.10 any time now.

Griffin gets a kicking

So, Nick Griffin wasn't desperately good on question time, quelle surprise. The man has a charisma of a walnut, and I mean the sort of walnut you bite into and then realise its gone off. It is true that the program was one-sided, but a someone better would have risen to the occasion. He bombed instead, especially when confronted by some of his own quotes, weaselling and evading on issues like Holocaust denial where an inability to be straight told us all we needed to know.

The fact is that Griffin being so useless is a great stroke of good fortune for our country. Under his leadership, the BNP is going nowhere, anyone can see that. The real problem would come if he were to be replaced by someone a bit more talented and a bit more normal. Unfortunately, there are a few such people in the far-right abut fortunately their poisonous internal politics will probably keep Griffin at the helm for a good few years yet. That is time enough for a Conservative government to address the most serious policy failures that Labour have heaped on communities that are supporting the BNP in any numbers. Then with a bit of luck the BNP will spiral away down the plughole.

Green Agenda at Basildon Council

Nick Clegg gave the local Liberal Democrats a call, or an email, or something and so a motion for Basildon Council to sign up to the 10:10 campaign found itself on the agenda for Basildon Council's meeting last night. This asks people, businesses and organisations to sign up to a 10% cut in carbon emissions by the end of 2010 and you are probably asking what could possibly be wrong with that? Quite a bit, unfortunately. You see Basildon's Conservative administration has been working hard on carbon emissions for years now, with a large number of measures already in place. So, a pledge would really mean a pledge to cut by 3% by mid 2011. It also excludes recycling, which is extraordinary. There is also the small matter of hypocrisy. Liberal Democrat Councillors have repeatedly voted against measures to reduce the Council's carbon footprint. They voted against the refurbishment of the Civic Centre, which allowed us to close another whole building, and they voted against the new Sporting Village, which will allow us to close two more old, hugely energy inefficient buildings.

Anyway, we amended the motion and cue outrage from the Liberals. I suppose being told there was a difference between gesture politics and getting on the job must have offended their delicate sensibilities.

BNP on Question Time tonight

This is the BNP's take on Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time tonight, send out to everyone on their mailing list:

Question Time is scheduled for 10.35pm tomorrow evening (Thursday) and will be a milestone in the indomitable march of the British National Party towards saving our country.

Our violent opponents on the far Left have promised to lay siege and barricade the studio venue, because they know only too well that this could be THE key moment that propels the BNP into the big time.

Never before have we had the chance to present our patriotic, common sense solutions to Britain's nightmare situation to the public at large in such a prominent fashion.

However, members and supporters must be aware that this show will be a stage-managed farce organised in a specific way to leave several impressions:

• The audience will be hand-picked and overtly hostile - thus giving the impression that the British people at large must be hostile to BNP views.
• The panellists will be overtly hostile, even the non-political guests will be hostile. Everyone will be hostile - this will leave the impression to non-informed viewers that BNP views have minority status.
• I will, no doubt, be interrupted, shouted down, slandered, put on the spot, and subject to a scrutiny that would be a thousand times more intense than anything directed at other panellists.

It will, in other words, be political blood sport.

But I am relishing this opportunity, and I know that, despite the stage-managed hostile audience and panellists, YOU, the ordinary members, supporters and voters of the BNP, will be in the studio with me as I take on the corrupt, treacherous swine destroying our beautiful island nation.

It is an appeal to alienation and hostility, and also a careful attempt to manage expectations. Griffin knows that he is unlikely to shine, and so he is getting his excuses in first. He is a poor speaker with an incoherent argument and so a verbal kicking is the only likely outcome.

The note is also a pretty good illustration why the BNP is not likely to get very far in British politics. Using the phrase 'corrupt, treacherous swine' may have been a winner in pre-war Germany, but in 21st century Britain it sounds a bit bonkers.

Lisbon Treaty amendments

Now the Slovaks have joined the Czechs in asking for an amendment to the Lisbon treaty. Both are concerned that the treaty as it stands might open them to claims from ethnic Germans evicted after the second world war. In both cases they are a bit late, but the row is delaying ratification much to the consternation of the European establishment. This can only be a good thing, and it raises the very faint hope that the argument will stretch until the UK general election, which might see a Conservative government. That would mean the referendum on the treaty that we were promised by Labour, a promise they ratted on without even bothering to make up a plausible excuse.

An interesting question is what the effect on the general election would be if a referendum on the treaty was a live issue? That would present the Conservatives with a bit of a dilemma, as it would certainly be a good campaign theme, but would risk over-shadowing other policy areas. David Cameron's greatest achievement has been to stop the monomania on Europe and so there would be a careful balancing act required to manage the prospect of a real referendum on Lisbon during an election campaign. Having said that, a problem for the Conservatives is a nightmare for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who would find themselves on the wrong side of the argument and having to explain why they weren't in favour a referendum to a largely eurosceptic public.

Of course, the best case scenario is that this is exactly what happens and that we finally get a referendum on Lisbon from a Conservative government. I am pretty sure what the result would be of that.

BBC fails to understand Pakistan's war on the Taliban

Pakistan has launched its long awaited offensive against the Taliban in the Mehsud areas of South Waziristan. This follows a series of vicious terrorist atrocities against civilians in Pakistani cities and an assault on the Pakistani army headquarters. Terrorism is always depressing, that human beings use violence not just for political ends, but where the body count of the innocent is the primary means to their ends. War is hell, as a wise soldier once said, but the objective in most wars is to take territory or to destroy military capability or both. Terrorism seeks to kill as many of the innocent as possible until the survivors are so sickened they give into whatever the terrorist agenda happens to be.

As a tactic it has an almost universal history of failure, but that doesn't stop one bunch of sociopaths after another giving it a try. It is also much misunderstood, especially it seems by the sort of half-wits who report on BBC News. The thing is this: because terrorists are very unconstrained in their choice of targets, because you can kill civilians almost anywhere, they can made out as much more powerful then they actually are. Just because terrorists can let of a bomb in a market does not mean that they have any great ability or control. How hard is it to set off a bomb next to a fruit stall after all? Yet to hear the BBC this was direct evidence of the imminent collapse of the Pakistani state. Then after a bomb was let off it Mingora in the Swat valley, which was recently retaken from the Taliban, the breathless BBC reporter stated that there were so many Pakistani troops there that there might not be enough for the enough left for the Waziristan assault? Excuse me? The Pakistani army has 700,000 men with another half million in reserve. For Waziristan the nature of the terrain means that numbers are much less important than mobility and logistics anyway. Where do they find these reporters? Have they never heard of fact-checking before they shoot their mouths off on air.

In fact, the only vaguely impressive thing that the Taliban have done is the attack on the army headquarters, but even here half of their assault was shot to bits at the gate and the rest were killed or captured by special forces after a short siege, which speaks well of the Pakistani army given that the attackers had the element of surprise. The fact is that the Pakistanis are at war with the Taliban, and wars have battles and losses on both sides. Ever since the Pakistani government stopped being a military dictatorship and the civilian politicians got serious about fighting their internal enemy then the tide of success has really only had one direction, and it hasn't favoured the terrorists. It would be nice if the BBC employed people who could place terrorists attacks in context, instead of spouting the line that every suicide bomber hitting a bus queue means a stunning reverse for the forces of civilisation.

Expenses Inquiry - another Gordon Brown fiasco

How hard can it be? All that was required was a thorough enquiry into MPs expenses that separated the criminals and chancers from those who had merely struggled to do the right thing against the background of a poorly defined expenses system. A decent Terms of Reference, a competent auditor, a bit of understanding of both public anger and MPs circumstances and the old cliché of 'drawing a line' might have had some validity. Instead Gordon Brown gets it wrong, again. Apparently MPs are furious, especially the same Labour backbenchers who wouldn't even nominate anyone to stand against their dear leader. Maybe some sort of karma is operating here.

On a related matter Jacqui Smith had to apologise to parliament for basically stealing around £100, 000 from the taxpayer by claiming her sister's spare bedroom was her main home and then claiming everything she possibly could for her real family home. This famously included funding her husband's porn movies of course. Her greed wrecked her political career and puts her seat under threat at the next election. Here's hoping.

Gordon Brown thinks that things can only get better

Gordon Brown has a new strategy - optimism. He is going to portray Labour as the sunny, happy party against a Conservative Party of doom and gloom. According to the Telegraph:

Labour, as he explains it, will be the Sunshine Party in a general election battle against Tory miserabilists.

Apparently the basis for this uncharacteristic cheer will be the Prime Minister's prediction of higher than expected levels of growth next year. That is higher than expected by anyone else other than Gordon Brown, including the Her Majesty's Treasury, the CBI, and the OECD. His prediction is that the economy will grow by 1.5% next year, which he thinks will spike the Conservative 'we are all in this together' strategy. Well, what's wrong with this picture?

• The consensus prediction is for much lower growth.
• The election must be called by half-way through next year anyway, allowing little time for increased growth to kick in and before any numbers are calculated.
• Most ordinary people do not base their votes on economic predictions, rather on their own circumstances and experience.
• Unemployment is a lagging indicator, so even if there is higher growth the high unemployment that is the most pernicious effect of recession will be around for quite a while yet.
• A very strong economic recovery after 1992 didn't do John Major's government much good, despite a much longer run up to the 1997 election.

Actually, none of this matters, because of the one thing a higher growth prediction does give Labour and Gordon Brown. By assuming that things are going to get much better much faster, Labour can promise all sorts of spending at the election that the Conservative Party cannot. By claiming that there will be more money Gordon Brown can then offer to spend it on behalf of the electorate if they vote for him. As an election strategy it is based on contemptible dishonesty.

Business as usual for Labour then.

David Cameron on poverty

David Cameron is not a rhetorical speaker. He does not reach the verbal heights of a Barack Obama or of my old friend Mark Francois. He doesn't communicate the raw emotion of a John Prescott. However, he doesn't take the route of purely logical argument either. This is best exemplified by Gordon Brown, whose speeches are like being sprayed with information to a point that you start to lose the will to live. In fact, you tend to get the feeling that the main purpose of his speaking is to establish how intelligent Gordon Brown is relative to you. In any case, David Cameron has a very plain speaking style, in fact a studied lack of style that is either very natural, or the product of intensive training. The effect is pretty good though, and his conference speech was a statement of vision delivered without drama, except for one moment. At one point he looked right into the camera and told the Labour party not to dare to lecture the wicked Tories on poverty after their many failures. It was brilliant and spine-tingling, and I am told that it was electric in the conference hall.

My judgement, and that of most opinion-formers, is that David Cameron not only delivered an effective speech, but parked his tanks neatly on Labour's lawn. It was also the right thing to focus on. To paraphrase, the Conservative Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing. It is just that it usually doesn't mention it.