By I wanted to remind you about our Beat the BNP Day of Action this Saturday, 9th January.
We will be meeting at Becontree tube station (on the District Line) at 10am and then we will be going out door knocking and delivering leaflets from 10-12pm and, after a buffet lunch, again at 1-3pm.
For years the BNP have dreamed of a seat at Westminster, and this time they think they have a chance. But I am determined that 2010 will be the year that dream is put to an end.
Here in Barking we need your support and solidarity to do this. So it would be fantastic if you could join us on Saturday, and please do bring along any friends or family members who are interested as well.
If you have any questions, you can call our campaign hotline on 07576 323 109 or send an email to liz.bradshaw.07@googlemail.com.
All good wishes and Happy New Year.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I adore that man, and will happily learn from your post sometime tonight.
Markets or rather certain companies can buy politicians and monopolise, of course this does not detract from the weakness of the politician in question but ensures that wealth and power continues to be siphoned into the hands of fewer people, until of course the a threshold event occurs to change this.
You only have to look at history which shows the terrible and sometimes great things that happened when the power of the State, any state ended up in the hands of too few people, whether a group or an individual.
As for self interest, it depends on the amount of self-interest. A little greed is no bad thing really, but the greed we see displayed by celebrated people is such that it is unsustainable to maintain.
I don't think with dwindling resources we necessarily have to leave it all to the last minute and have all our lives cutailed by poverty and conflict across the world, I think moderation at top by role models could help to limit the social and environmental harm we are doing to ourselves and our environment.
I am not BNP myself.
But until the Labour party stops shouting and starts to listen and answer the questions which the BNP poses in chav areas, the BNP will simply take them over.
For far too long the "working class" Labour and Tory parties, let alone the BBC and Guardian, have taken their own hinterlands for granted. This is now not an option.
Margaret Hodge isn't going to stop this avalanche alone.
Chavs dont vote BNP Mike,they dont vote at all.But peeed off Labour supporters who have been ignored do.And they are voting BNP in my area.
hate to say it, but I did say this would happen ;(
Mr Brown in his new year message " Warned voters not to wreck the econmy " , I dont have a clip but it was reported in the media .
Danny
Please find me that bit where Brown warned voters not to wreck the economy, as I do not remember him saying it, and I don't think he did. If you can clarify, I will gladly accept that he did.
That could happen. The look would be one of deep sadness, not just for Margaret, but all of us who will have worked so hard, helped so many, as well as those candidates in the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, UKIP, Independent etc etc who will be standing.
We already know there is a level of anxiety in the local business community as the reputation of the Borough would be at stake too as a place that hopefully one day will see improvemnts in it's economy.
I would like to say one thing in defence of Margaret Hodge and the Barking and Dagenham Council. It was not their fault the Ford factory went into decline, it was nobody's fault, it was a trajedy for all concerned, including the business community of the Borough all of whom have done everything in their power to lift up the area and bring some element of dignity to the people whatever their cultual identification.
The stupid levels of migration did not help but most were and are commuting workers in the other parts of London.
But as is the case in other parts of the country, the borough endures a terrible sense of fear brought about by the utter failure of the economics and political establishment who to my mind are completley incompetant and driven by thier own personal self interests.
The reason there is so much anger is that many people are (rightly) afraid that our countries interests have been compromised by narrow minded, insular morons whose only concern is thier own sycophancy to a flawed economic model that continually and consistently fails us time, time, and time again.
The Homer Simpsons doh! doh! doh! must come to an end, Cameron is right on one thing, it has to end, he just does not have a clue what it is that needs to end.
You are very right, on the doorstep we adopt a different strategy and it is working well so far.
@ Roger
Why they are not branded "extreme left" amazes me.
And why more people don't accept the obvious fact that the world is flat still amazes me. Fortunately this kind of revisionism is gaining no kind of traction.
Whereas the recognition that the Nazis were basically socialists is spreading like wildfire. Socialism is the enemy of individual freedom: the more of it you have, the greater the authoritarianism of the State and the worse its abuses.
As an aside, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read" http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
Ignorance and idiocy spread like wildfire sometimes, Phil. Though the word 'socialist' is in their party title, the Nazis interred and killed anyone to the left of the German conservatives, from Social Democrats, Liberal Lutherans to the Communists (having spent ten years beating them up on the streets). They didn't nationalise the economy in a typical Bolshevik way, but befriended industrialists and increased the powers of the cartels. Most the social spending associated with them (such as the autobahnen and the Olympic Stadium) was started by the centrists of the Weimar era. Moreover, where Marxist style socialists believed in the class war, Hitler always believed in the race war - a profound philosophical difference.
The only place where this socialist=nazi meme gains any traction is on the libertarian and right wing blogs where bizarre theories spawn and die. Most of these arguments are based on Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, where he cites Mussolini saying he is a socialist until he dies. But that was in 1919. By 1921 Mussolini said socialism stand for everything he opposed.
Try taking this American born piece of claptrap in Germany or Italy, and be prepared to have people laugh in your face.
The difference isn't as profound as you think. The roots of both sets of ideas can be found in Plato and Hegel. Whatever ism's you dress it up with and regardless of the particular omelettes we are asked to believe worthy of breaking eggs, the fundamental idea is that the hoi-polloi can't be trusted to work things out for themselves and need a nudge and the occasional poke by Philosopher Kings, Uncle Joe or the Fuhrer.
Either you look to government for solutions or you believe in human freedom.
Well, I agree there is an authoritarian/totalitarian streak at the far right and far left (the red/brown alliance) but having noted that, I think that this libertarian tendency to see all government as impinging on human freedom misses the larger point: individuals want to impinge on each others freedom too, and the rule of law (backed up by the Leviathan like state and its monopoly of violence) has historically protected individuals from the predations of their peers.
This basic Hobbesian point is something most libertarians fail to address in their monomania that all governments are basically fascist/communist conspiracies to deprive individuals of their rights. A proper functioning state can protect the rights of individuals and minorities too. I don't say this happens most the time, but philosophically, your inability to accept that premise makes you blind to a whole rage of thinkers from Locke, through J S Mill, Keynes and Isaiah Berlin.
I'm as wary as philosopher kings as you are. The problem is that Hayek, Friedman, Nozick et al, have been crowned and turned into near deities, and the binary authoritarian/libertarian shtick applied ad nauseum with scant regard to fact or practice.
But the rule of law is fundamental for most libertarians, especially the ones that seem most relevant to the political discourse in the UK such as Hayek, Friedman and Thatcher. Without wanting to argue about labels, libertarianism is about minimal government rather than no government.
But how do we define 'minimal government'? Very simply it is a government that doesn't try to do good with other people's money. That leaves two functions:
a) enforce a set of proscribed actions that apply to everyone equally*
b) protect the country from external threats.
To conclude, libertarians believe in the rule of law. They believe in it with a passion.
* And are decided upon democratically. I don't think this is strictly part of the libertarian argument but I believe the vast majority of libertarians are also democrats.
You make my point for me. The closer you look at the realities of so called libertarian thinkers, the further away we get from the binary banalities of authoritarianism versus libertarianism.
1. Hayek specifically said he was an old fashioned liberal, and not a libertarian.
2. Thatcher, while economically laissez faire, was a social authoritarian (cf Official secrets, Clause 28, support for South Africa etc.)
3. You say 'some' libertarians are democrats. But not all are. As for the rule of law, Nozick said (as long it was done voluntarily) that a man could sell himself into slavery, thus undermining the very principles of law he said he supported.
4. Once you start legislating over laws of contract or criminal acts, there is no philosophical bar to legislation on a) Monopoly power b) market infrastructure such as education and health c) other market failures such as exploitation of child labour, disability, maternity and paternity rights etc..
I'd actually say I also believe in minimal government, but that we just have very different ideas of what 'minimal' is. Having known several former communist countries for many years, I think you have little idea how little control the state has over civil society in the UK, let alone the economy. We should always be wary of more encroachments by the state, whether that be Labour's ID card proposals, or the Tories tax subsidies for their idea of 'marriage'. But I still feel your spectacles are incredibly monochromatic, and omit the other glaring threats to my liberty - from other individuals, and from corporate interests. The latter - as in the case of Facebook and Google - hold much more personal information on you than any government.
Sutton Council in south London confirmed it had exposure totalling £5.5m, and Havering Council in east London said it had investments worth £12.5m. North Lincolnshire Council has £2m invested with Landsbanki and £3.5m in the firm's UK bank, Heritable. North East Lincolnshire Council said it had £2.5m on deposit with Landsbanki.
Hertfordshire County Council has £17m invested, while Buckinghamshire has £5m - the same sum as Cornwall County Council.' How many are Tory-controlled county councils? Draw your own conclusions about: efficiency, effectiveness, economy; financial acumen; and the cuts to their budgets.
I've met Cass Sunstein, know his wife, and libertarian paternalism shares little in common with libertarianism as articulated in the US today. In fact, Sunstein has proposed a 'celebrate paying taxes' days. The very title 'libertarian paternalism' gives the game away. Sunstein and Thayer are classic liberals, in the American centre left democratic mould. They simultaneously believe in regulation of the markets, and aspects of society, while distrusting the heavy weapons of big government.
I would put myself in their camp - but it's miles away I'm afraid of the kind of libertarianism prevalent now, not only on GF, but in US thinking. I comment a bit more about that below in my reply to Phil Mill.
But thanks for the intervention regardless.
My definition of libertarianism is the one provided by Phil Mill, but I disagree with his diagnosis (not least from what is manifest in the USA radical right). Cameron was very interested in nudge or behavioural economics, but I just can't see its application for the past two years - libertarians seem resistant to nudges and paternalism, so it almost seems like an oxymoron. Forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree and do explain further what you mean.
Oh dear, the old Lockean-Mill-Isaiah Berlin libertarian argument about freedom from ('government'). Well, we'd be really f****d now if it was left to 'invisible hand' and 'enlightened self-interest' of your Adam Smith, the extreme individualism and self-correcting markets of Hayek-Friedman-Chicago School-Thatcher-Reagan. There is little 'enlightenment' about self-interest, much more amour-propre. The problem probably comes when you dichotomize in this way to one extreme or the other. Life is fuzzy and complicated, not a dualist either/or.
This is where you have it so wrong. Human rights correctly understood are not about freedom FROM anything. The reverse is true (if indeed we have any rights): only those actions that are specifically forbidden by the State are disallowed, everything else is a matter of individual choice. The point is that we should have the freedom TO anything, except for a very small number of specific things that are against the law (things like theft or murder).
"There is little 'enlightenment' about self-interest"
Self-interest is what Albert Einstein was pursuing when he pondered gravity and light. Self-interest is what Mahatma Gandhi was pursuing in his civil disobedience. Less extravagant examples include mums and dads teaching their kids to read or someone deciding to learn Spanish. It is a ridiculous misanthropic travesty to depict self-interest as a greedy money-oriented vice. It is on the contrary the foundation of all that's inspiring and wonderful about humanity.
It is a ridiculous misanthropic travesty to depict self-interest as a greedy money-oriented vice. It is on the contrary the foundation of all that's inspiring and wonderful about humanity.
The problem is that this use of self-interest is so tenuous, you could put 'social interest' in its place, and barely change the meaning. We're clearly highly individualised, but also social animals. Einstein and Gandhi consistently recognised this, and any evolutionary biologist can point out that through language and culture, our great adaptive advantage is the power of co-operation. Adam Smith recognised the same, and while positing that financial self interest was a better distributor (in an open market) of goods and resources, he explicitly disavowed taking any moral lessons from this when it came to human emotion and quality of life.
This is the problem with elevating a particular into a universal. Too much Plato my dear boy. Try reading some less monomanic and idealist philosophers. Locke, Hume and Smith would be a great place to start.
We're in danger of arguing about words. The point is that the likes of Einstein and Gandhi had their own personal motives. We don't know precisely what drove them to imagine and do what they did. But we do know that they were not following government diktats or five-year plans.
He points out that five of the most important thinkers in regard to liberty and the limits of government - Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Popper, Peter Drucker - experienced the catastrophe of the Austrian revolution and the right wing backlash. Unlike, say Keynes, they had no experience of successful government intervention in a failing economy.
very helpful post : I to accidentally (and incorrectly) conflate "freedom from" and "right to"
Not that simple though is it Phill?
The banks were very free and very powerful ;)
I thinks it is a little more complicated than that and in some ways much simpler.
Too much power in the hands of too few is never a good idea. Public/private/religion/Government it is always very, very unwise.
There can be few industries with lower barriers to entry than banking. To be a bank, all you have to do is safely deposit money for businesses and individuals, ensure you have sufficient liquidity geographically to meet needs of your customers and earn interest on the money. In the past there were thousands of banks and, given how lucrative money dealing can be, it's not hard to understand why.
Doesn't it strike you therefore as rather odd that we should have so few banks today?
If you want to understand how it came to pass that the world's banking industry got into bed with government, you should read Milton Friedman. But the easy way to understand it is simply by considering:
a) how much legislation affects banks (and therefore how difficult it is in today's environment it is to found a bank - when did that last happen?)
b) how much time and money the banks throw into lobbying at Westminster and in Brussels.
Oh I agree, Richard Branson has been trying to start a bank for years right back to Virgin Direct in Norwich if I recall.
Like I said too much power in the hands of too few.
Yes but it is a fallacy that this state of affairs exists when markets are left to their own devices. The only means by which business can ever hope artificially to control the price of anything is with the assistance of government. The excuses range from protecting the consumer through to preventing jobs from going abroad. But the effect is always the same: the game changes from providing value for customers to lobbying government in the pursuit of special interests. Smart, energetic people who could be providing a useful service to society instead dedicate their lives to promoting the green lobby, making the case for British workers or representing the steel industry.
Great stuff. Good to finally have some informed pushback against the libertarian tendency here.
I'd only add that entire sectors can behave as 'modal monopolies' - e.g. financial services and investment/retail banks in the last ten years.
Please follow the instructions when dealing with this subject/poster
1. Light the blue touchpaper
2. Stand well back!
3. Enjoy the show!
I think it is unlikely that the BNP with their brand of extreme socialism will ever get elected to Westminister.
However, I would a pay a small fortune to see the look on your face if ever they did get in!
That would be payback for 12 years of Labour's deceiptful immigration policies.
In the Middle East one must have a sponsor - usually the company you're working for, a full medical and fingerprints taken every 12 months. The government is fully aware of who is in the country and their purpose for being there. Put simply they follow the ethos that 'If you're not here to benefit the country, then we don't want you'
Would it be so complicated to have this system in the UK? Labour and their ilk have so effectively scared everyone of being branded racist that nothing gets done.
I will have to read this debate tomorrow, as sadly little time again.Wishing you all the very best- and hope to see much of your comments on LL. Jo.
However, I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that the BNP have been used by elements on the right as a way of bashing Labour, and opening up a space where immigration clampdowns can be discussed. The BNP become an excuse - in the form 'if you don't address this issue the BNP will'.
There's one thing challenging the problems such as political disillusion, social collapse and poverty which feed the BNP's hate filled message. It's a completely different thing to capitulate to their unfounded and xenophobic central arguments.
I've bored people before with my personal reasons for detesting everything the BNP stand for. I commend all reasonable democrats to stand up for the diversity and tolerance for which Britain has been famed for centuries. But those who seek to use the BNP merely to attack Labour, or as an excuse to make provocative and tendentious points about race and class (or, as one poster on LL used to put it, 'all fascists are actually socialists') are doing nothing to combat the BNP, and may be giving them succour and legitimacy.
Maybe if they had a real labour party it might not have come to this , Your right mps have set a bad example (and to think they want a pay rise) .
Danny
but the problem has been no party would debate it with out leadership calling anyone who did a racist ,and that left a vacum for the bnp to get a toe hold in certen areas .
Danny
the one positive thing Labours leader Mr Brown could say is " I resign", and he can take his group of torys with him , Let the people have there labour party back .
Danny
I am a carer for my partner , And the work of all healthcare workers is outstanding , its because the white working class feel ignored that they feel this way , They want to send a message to our leadership about the issues they want discussing and policy changes , I did write i considered it but found abour 1 hour ago that its not my seat ( i am next door) . It is down to frusrtaion that the white working class feel alienated in there own country .
Danny
I was in Abbey Ward having a chat with some children who were not white, they feel alienated too ironically, they were born in Britain but are struggling against the tide. One family has three generations living in it, they all work and cannot afford to get on the housing market at all.
There is very little dignity for those people who are at the poor end whether they work in dead end jobs or not. There are very many of them too.
I think there are many people who have worked their full adult life right up to their forties who have never had the chance to buy a house and settle down to have a family and are too proud to do so via benefits.
These people have been severly betrayed, generations of them and soon they will exercise their votes across this country and severly betray those MP's who have abused the tax system to award themselves two or more houses...wonderfully entertaining and interesting times ahead.
So Ricki your frustrations are incredibly symbolic of those I see every day as I knock on doors. You are not alone and I will do absolutely everything I can to help you all and if I do stay in Blighty after the General elected, I shall begin campaigning seriously on your behalf....target: Parliament.
Stick to what Dan Rodwell told you!
Cheers. I hope it's a sight warmer on Saturday than it is today.
What? Good canvassing happens during the worst weather, it is a long standing and tradtional British Experience that places a spring in ones step, and good cheer to the public, personally I always hope for rain.
Gives you reason to get warm and treat yourself afterwards and laugh at the madness of it all ;)
That's not laughter. That's chattering teeth, that is.
I think any rain on Saturday will be white and fluffy, which will at least mean it's warmed up a bit;)
Snow? Cool more fun. Well you have inspired me Thomas.
So I believe that Labour will keep the council.It will be closer though for the position of MP.Labours only hope is if UKIP are standing,this may split the BNP vote.
Sadly,I will not be at home for you guys to doorstep me on Jan 9th.I am going into hospital for a major op.Hey,the health service is working!!!.
Hope you dont get to cold.
Your fav BNP voter,Alibon Ward.
Good luck with the Op! Whoever you vote for I hope you get well.
I only considered it but now i know its not my seat (i am in the dagenham and rainham seat) , what would i like to see policy wise? Immagration , an open and honest debate , , Id cards scrapped , Heathrow 3rd runway scrapped , Out of europe , Permant replacement of the 10p tax , No more spin , A leadership that will stand upto the bankers , not wine and knight them, Carers given more support , Answers why the white young boys are failing? Mr Blair and Mr Bush to go trail for war crimes (one can only hope) , Someone to stand up to isreal and tell them 2 wrongs dont make anything right, And to be listen to .
Danny
It appears to me your concerns are ones that massive numbers of people have but none of the main parties dare touch them. They are also pretty much old fashioned Labour values that new New Labour have dumped along the way. AIthough I am very pro-Europe myself, I mostly have the same policy concerns as you. I suspect millions of us do.
I could never tolerate voting for the BNP personally as I'm gay so they hate me as much as they hate non-whites!
I hope you do eventually hear something from Labour that will help you return.
I'll echo the voices of a few others and ask you to please reign in the personal attacks or assumptions. It's not fun. We are here for debate.
We know the BNP are awful and we are doing and must do everything to wipe them out. However, the Labour vote is so fragile at the moment it is no good to Labour if all those BNP voters do is stay at home on voting day. They need to be converted back to Labour. So what are we doing about that.
Why is this too difficult a question?
Finally, Derek, your comments towards me are verging on the libelous. Please don't go any further by saying anything about my tolerance levels.
It's unlikey that the BNP would ever gain a majority in parliament to be an effective political misgiving, if we look at some of their councillors and the areas they represent, their whole argument falls apart and becomes flawed and trapped in their own quagmire of hate.Wher has the BNP made a successful break through policy that has bettered a community?. They haven't and further more never will they are not serious about politics in general and their certainly not serious about helping people with education, health, homes, work, transport, and collective communitiy values.
We need to know this stuff so we can deploy it in other BNP areas.
There must be good reasons for this. I've been told here many times what they are in fact. But instead of taking it from the point of view "I would like to vote BNP and probably will because..." I would be interested in some genuine thoughts on how Labour could stop a mass exodus to the BNP : are we failing to get our message across, and what incidentally was our final message?
My impression from the Tories in fact is that they're not bothered as most of the exodus is to the BNP from Labour, not Tory, despite the fact that BNP IS far right. Something that I heard said somewhere was, re political 'switches' (internationally), swings tend to be from one extreme to another. Unusually.
Can you try mature debate instead of name calling
Thanks
Danny
Dan , I shall give you an example, Margaret Hodge was on my telly the other day speaking about why closing libraries is a good idea but she was obviously very annoyed that she had been asked this question and sounded very petulent and rude and spoke to the interviewer as if she were a two-year-old child with comprehension problems, think Thatcher but more grumpy and patronising.
And Derek, every time I read one of your rude, vacuous posts a fairy dies, can I suggest you sort yourself out?
This is one of the weakest arguments imaginable. Suppose for the sake of argument that the UK closed its borders to `pull' marriage of people who do not speak English and have no realistic prospect of work, and which tends to lead to an increase in children who in turn do not speak English because it is not spoken at home. Why would America and the US suddenly throw UK citizens with work permits out? Do you believe that those governments are so keen on immigration into the UK from Pakistan and Bangladesh that they would get involved? Why on earth would they do that? It's not as though there's a flow of American and Australian citizens who don't speak English into the UK, is it?
Nu labour have for twelve years lied lied and lied again about immigration
They have systematically smeared as racist anyone who dared to challenge their flawed orthodoxy that immigration was anything other than a benefit to Britain.
Their belated nd woefully inadequate lip service to debate about immigration, now they're about to be slung out of office for a very long time, is just that dishonest lipservice .
They have been utterly incompetent in ensuring the the integrity of Britains borders, it's asylum policy has been a sham, it's visa system has been nothing less than criminal.
And what have we learnt since then from a government advisor?
That immigration and multiculturism had nothing to do with making britain better but was just a policy to 'piss off' the right.
That sounds to me like a bunch of 'hateful lying incompetents'
EU citizens have the right to travel freely throughout Europe, non eu citizens do not.
That is not a partisan view that is a fact and it is a fact that through blabours deliberate policies they and they alone have created this problem
My only regret is that a vote for the BNP is in fact a vote for for gordon Brown, as every protest vote he manages to lose from the labour franchise, that fails to go to a party with a chance to take over the goverment, is a wasted vote.
Whilst i wish anyone who stands against the execrable margaret Hodge well I dont wish anything to stand in the way of kicking out this hateful, lying, corrupt, incompetent government!
Better re-check your schengen argument Wycombe.
I think you got confused , it was derek not ralph.
Danny
To be clear; I apologise to Ralph as I mistakenly aimed my response at him (not you) due to logging in on the iphone.
My point remains:
"Excuse me, Derek. What the hell are you talking about? How have you read all of that into my question. I am a Labour voter asking quite genuinely what our campaign message is beyond 'the BNP are hateful, lying incompetents'. I'd ask you to apologise if I thought you had a shred of decency to do so, but I don't so I won't."
To summarise, as well as campaigning against the BNP vote, what are we saying to convert them into Labour voters once again.
I don't expect any refined discourse from you on the reasonable question I raised since you only appear to be in personal attack mode this morning.
Your obviously at the end of your tolerance Jason!. Communities are better and stronger when they are united, what more of a motive would you require?.
1. I do not assume immigrants are on the dole even though there are a quite a few, I was referring to the whole swathe of benefits they tap into such as housing, free schools & free hospitals. They have contributed nothing towards the cost so should be made to pay for these services for 5 years. I agree we have too many being exploited.
However stories like the one in the press yesterday about how many illegals are working in our Public Services and then when caught, no fines for the employer like in the Private Sector!
Ralph I agree with your point 2, but unless we can find a way to stop 420 million Europeans having the right to work here the problem will only get worse and the BNP support will rise, especially in our Northern Cities.
On point 5 I believe the figure is near or over 50% but I cannot swear to this as i read it in a Newspaper.
But as always you have a calming influence on some of my thoughts, and most welcome as always.
Ok lets have a look. The European "deal" was always going to be a problem as people relate more to their National identities. However with the strength of the pound it was obvious people would flock here, the sad reality is that not so many people in the Uk have been flocking out.
As I have said many times the resource and infrastructure carrying capacity for different geographical localalities of our country needs to be determined. We have seen a reckless failure by governments historically and sadly it took the election of even stranger people than the ones we elected to finally get them to act, still not enough though I agree.
I am unsure on your view on hospitals as I do not want sick, ill or dying visitors to this country flocking the streets and affecting public health because we don't want to help them.
You have to remember Phillip we still (I have experienced it myself) have a very good reputation Internationally (as a people not just the politicians) overseas for being a damn decent set of people, in fact when we condemned our MP's expenses they all lost credibibility and we gained even more for our sense of fairness.
We have to maintain that as it will help us solve other countries issues, which of course will ultimately lead to a better and fairer economic playing field when we talk about Human Rights improvements needed in thier countries and in improving working conditions too.
You have to be on a clean platform to preach Internationally.
We need that.
So we have to guarentee a decent level of dignity to all our people and our guests when they visit. Guests though have to understand how to behave though when they arrive and respect and tolerate the differences we have.
No the funniest thing about crime is that ethnic minorities are represented fairly. The last time I checked (may be dated though) the home Office figures were 85% white and 15% other. This may have changed a tad since it was over a year ago I checked but it cannot be as much as 50%.
Guess hazico was right on the Right Wing Newspapers. Who I might add have been proactively telling lies about immigration for years now, the things they will risk for a good story.....and adds to the problem when you do have high levels of immigration in and around various cities.
Immigration is a problem, has been a problem, will be a problem. But there are vested interests whose hypocracy damages their own philosophies. The very Right Wing groups that abuse people and pay for them cheaply then go ahead and complain about it and bully them. Typical old style Tory, find a small group and pick on them, single mothers, immigrants, gypsies.
There are Tories who are better than this of course and I won't tar them with the same brush.
Michael Portillo described the very media I have mentiond as "evil".
Says it all doesn't it?
As for me I remember well serving my country with muslims, english, welsh, scottish, africans and i just got to know them as either friends or work colleagues, the aspect of their race was irrelevant.
I do think that local people though do deserve a decent skills development programme though when they lose their jobs. Nobody has been willing to foot the bill though, they prefer to pay long-term benefits instead. It really is short-termism of the most stupid and cynical kind and more, much more must be done.
I'm assuming that a high percentage (perhaps a majority) of BNP supporters are former Labour voters. As well as pointing out the wretched racist agenda of the BNP what SPECIFIC new policies are being proposed by Labour to address the concerns of the residents of Barking?
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you and apologies for the unwanted input by "Derek Barker" who I believe is a disgruntled Labour Troll and is probably here to record all that I say to use against me at election time.
At the moment we really are focussing all our energy in helping people with their problems now. in terms of policy we are focusing on facilities for the local kids and the elderly, supported by doing whatever we can to support the local economy.
Obviously i am expecting the funds to be seriously limited and we will have to ensure priorities are directed to those most vulnerable people in the borough during these difficult times.
Already the Council is implimenting a housing development programme which they should be congradualted for as they had to work hard to secure it and I applaud their efforts.
So we are trying, on a number of levels to solve as much as we can now.
The idea that the BNP is a protest vote is nonsense and extremely dangerous.
Get a grip Jason.
Ever so slightly confused.
Do you know if there's two events occurring. One in Barking, and one in Dagenham?
Darren Rodwell's just confirmed to me this morning a different venue in Dagenham for 10am.
Lol I shall check!
Thanks , Just checked , i am in the Dagenham and rainham seat
Danny
dissagremeant is a good thing it happens in all partys , anyway if we all agreed on everything then there would be no need to have elections or any debates .
Danny
Personally, sometimes I disagree with Danny, but always having mis-read his posts in a hurry in the first place.
so is the seat now Barking and Dagenham? Or just Barking ,but includes Dagenham?
Get well soon ralph
Danny
Take a look at http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/9-democracy/electoral/electoral-useit.html
This lists the ward reallocations following the Boundary Commission review.
Still two parliamentary constituencies - barking and dagenham.
Many , the tone of the leadership is to blame anyone else except themselves, The ecomny (not our fault guv), There was the bit in Mr Browns new year message when he warned voters not to wreck the econmy , That doesnt make good pr sense does it ?
Danny
1. No benefits for immigrants for 5 years
2. Close the Borders until we have removed the million plus illegals.
3. No more British Passports for immigrants who break the law.
4. Any immigrant who breaks the law should be instantly removed.
5. Empty the prisons which are full of immigrants and ship them back to where they come from.
6. Don't start any more illegal wars, so we do not have to take 100s of 1000s of immigrants from Countries in the Middle East.
7. Stop housing immigrant families in houses with rents of £60,000
a year!
8.Most importantly of all, Labour Ministers must stop lying and pretending everything is fine!
Point 1 The idea that most immigrants are on the dole is false. Though many of them are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers.
Point 2 If you close the borders, other countries may well close their borders to us, how many English are in Europe and the US? How many have migrated to Australia, do you have a job waiting for them for when they return?
Point 3 I don't have an issue with this and agree, once they are proven guilty of course.
Point 4 Some are.
Point 5 No. The prisons are not full of migrants. That is a fallacy. Though people who come to this country and commit offenses should be dealt with severly and we should be looking at sending them home.
Point 6 War is utter madness at the best of times and its only aim is supposed to be to protect our country from threats to our freedom and lives as a country.
Point 7 Sounds like freud to me as the Benefits people do ask who you share a property with when you make a claim. I have been reading up on this and they are very thorough. So people getting away with what you have suggested have been very cunning and broken the rules. No government or job center actively and voluntarily do this though, so it is not a failure of policy. It is criminal behaviour.
8 Agreed.
Congratulations for being on the money so often. I remember being laughed at by someone called Derek for raising some of the points that you do. Good on Alex for taking a more enlightened approach.
Can I have some examples of being spoken at rather than to?
But isint Becontree more dagenham than barking?
Danny
Boundary changes.
What was Jon Cruddas will soon be Margaret Hodge's candidate area. Due to illness i cannot start campaigning until Wednesday/Thursay dammit and everyone is taking all my fun!
Will be there on Saturday come what may!
To defeat the bnp , the party must change , So how will it change? what policys? when will the open and honest debates be had? When will the spin stop? The class war? And when will they talk with us not at us .
Danny