Firstly I really don’t know whether to laugh, cry or bang my head on the wall over UKIP position over immigration. I’m sure many welcomes the discussions on immigration yet the way how it is painted by UKIP does the debate no justice as they fail to recognize without immigrants UK would not have exist. It’s a bit rich coming from Nigel Farage when he said “Opening the UK’s boarders to new EU members had, had a detrimental impact on social cohesion”
I have to say that UKIP makes the point they feel uncomfortable about the unwillingness of new arrivals to learn and speak English. Well let me remind UKIP members and supporters to revisit their own history of where your fore parents came from before they started their mass migration to the UK. We all know that the UK is being built on mass migration from Span, Germany, France, Poland, Denmark, and Russia. More to the point there is no such thing as a true English man.
Do I read right I hear some people say. What rubbish some quarter will say. Er no this is true and I kid you not. Granted there is the argument to say that we should recruit more home grown talent to take up jobs and the truth of the matter is some employers would rather take on EU workers as they don’t have to pay them the national minimum wage let alone a living wage.
The downside of this argument for UKIP is the only policy they have is to attack migration which becomes a one issue party which the BNP would love to have in the first place.
VOTERS in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election have delivered a bloody nose to the governing coalition parties, pushing the Tories into third place behind Ukip and costing the Liberal Democrats their deposit.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage is cock-a-hoop over his candidate finishing second, the sixth time this has happened since 2010, and complains about postal voting and Labour’s “bully-boy tactics.”
Neither of these positions stands up. Coming second doesn’t put members in the House of Commons and complaining about electoral rules and your opponents smacks of being a poor loser.
UKIP has taken on the mantle of the pre-coalition Liberal Democrats — all things to all people and anything to get elected.
It worked for decades for the Liberal Democrats. They were the alternative conservative party in Tory strongholds and the other progressive party in Labour areas.
Farage’s party has tried the same strategy, displacing the Tories and challenging the Liberal Democrats in Eastleigh while it shamelessly posed as the party of the working class in Wythenshawe.
In one sense only was UKIP unlucky. The national floods emergency pushed the by-election off the front pages, denying the party the opportunity of creating the kind of propaganda bandwagon that often benefited the Liberal Democrats.
However, UKIP didn’t deserve a lucky break given the dishonesty of its approach.
It is easy enough to point to the class origins, wealth and posh houses of Labour frontbenchers, but it doesn’t really work when Farage’s own background is well known.
The privately educated son of a stockbroker who made a fortune as a commodities trader and describes himself as a Thatcherite is hardly the epitome of a working-class hero.
That is made even more clear when a spotlight is shone on UKIP policies, other than the most highly publicised of opposition to immigration and to the European Union.
Most people accept that the tax system in Britain has to change, but not, as UKIP wants, to a flat rate where multimillionaires and people on the minimum wage would pay the same proportion of their income.
As a true Thatcherite, Farage would cut investment in public services by even more than the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour, destroying the NHS and state education and throwing another couple of million workers on the dole.
Needless to say, UKIP candidate John Bickley didn’t make a big thing of these crackpot ideas on the knocker in Wythenshawe. Nevertheless, it is likely that UKIP will continue to poll well in England, largely as a protest vote, in by-elections over the next year. The party’s influence is less marked in Scotland and Wales because of its essentially English Tory image and the existence of mainstream nationalist parties to soak up voter hostility to the major Westminster parties.
The turnout of just 28 per cent reveals continued disenchantment with the delights on offer to the electorate, where the difference between parties committed to cutting public spending is marginal.
It is natural for ideologically committed neoliberal parties such as the Tories and Liberal Democrats to plump for the bankers’ austerity agenda.
But as it pointed out this week, Labour ought to be posing a real alternative based on tackling inequality, not least through a fairer taxation system, especially for corporate wealth.
Voters will continue to turn their backs on polling stations as long as they aren’t enthused by the choice on offer.
Secondly Ed Miliband’s plans to erode the voice of trade unions who helped elect him Labour leader will be voted on today at a special conference.
Delegates from constituency parties, socialist societies and trade unions will descend on east London’s Excel conference centre to decide the future of their party, almost exactly 114 years after it was founded at a conference hosted by the Trades Union Congress.
And all but a handful of left-wing dissenters are expected to vote for the reforms proposed by former Labour general secretary Lord Collins.
If the reforms are passed, the collective union vote that saw Mr Miliband edge out his brother David in Labour’s 2010 leadership contest will be replaced with a one-member-one-vote system.
The opt-out levy and voting rights for members of affiliated unions will be replaced by opt-in fees and individual membership, which will be introduced over a five-year transition period.
The Labour Representation Committee warned the changes represented a “clear step away from the collective basis of union affiliation.”
Labour MP and LRC John McDonnell said Mr Miliband was delivering what Blair and Mandelson dreamed of.
“A Labour Party cut off from its trade union base and rid of any connection to the working class. This is a sad day for all those who have fought for Labour over generations.”
Bakers’ union BFAWU is set to oppose the plans along with left MPs and representatives of Young Labour.
BFAWU president Ian Hodson said: “When any politician starts talking about ‘reform’ the klaxons start blaring as ‘reform’ usually means dilution, erosion or a total dismantling of a system for ideological gain.
“Trade unions are already an honest and transparent movement of mainly ordinary folk who want the voice of working people to be heard loud and clear in the political arena.
“The recommendations in this draft have the potential to silence the voice of ordinary people and hamstring their representation in Parliament.
“If Labour want to dictate that relationship whilst taking the money, that money can easily be removed and spent elsewhere.”
The newspaper, which already disgraced itself by demeaning Ralph Miliband as “the man who hated Britain” as a means of undermining his Labour leader son Ed, is no zealous pursuer of truth.
Its pious declaration that “it is a newspaper’s job to ask awkward and controversial questions” cannot be taken at face value.
Exposing hypocrisy and corruption is a valid role for investigative journalists, but the best it can do is to trawl through cuttings from 40 years ago to attempt to embarrass two prominent Labour politicians.
It could have delved into the archives of just a few weeks back to expose the hypocrisy of its own well-heeled editor Paul Dacre, the scourge of “benefits scroungers” and all things European Union, who trousered €300,000 in EU handouts for his 14,000-acre Langwell estate near Ullapool, which attracts shooting and fishing parties.
If that’s too recent, why not go a bit further back to lay bare the Mail’s journalistic ethos?
Just 80 years ago the paper backed Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists enthusiastically, plumbing the depths with its Hurrah for the Blackshirts splash headline.
A decade earlier, it published the forged Zinoviev letter four days before general election day in a bid to minimise Labour’s vote.
The Mail has been consistent in defending the class interests of big business and landowners and it will stoop to any level to misrepresent and abuse anyone it perceives as threatening those interests.
In one sense, Harman, Dromey and Miliband should be proud of being bracketed as the main threats to the Tories winning the next election.
Some might justifiably wish that the threat posed by Labour to the wealth and power of the City and the beneficiaries of inherited riches was greater than so far revealed.
However, no-one can remain neutral in this concocted anti-Labour controversy that has all the sophistication of a lynch mob. Harman and Dromey must be supported in their battle to defend their political reputations against the Mail’s witch-hunt.
It is certainly true that the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties forerunner of today’s Liberty – in the 1970s. The NCCL had an open door approach to affiliation.
It is equally true that, in the wake of the legalisation of male homosexuality, there was wide debate on other forms of sexual expression, including incest and paedophilia.
But, as NCCL secretary Patricia Hewitt pointed out then, associating paedophilia and gay rights damaged the fight for gay rights.
Dromey, who took over the chair at NCCL in 1976, led the way in rejecting the supposed “rights” of paedophiles while Harman, as legal officer, had her priorities defined by the annual general meeting and had no involvement with PIE.
Neither has anything to apologise for over the issue of sexualisation of children, which is more than can be said for the Mail.
Independent columnist Owen Jones’s online petition drawing attention to the paper’s record of “presenting underage girls in a deeply inappropriate and sexualised manner” should be supported as an antidote to its descent into character assassination.
As Jones says, “it’s about time we showed our disapproval at this sinister portrayal of underage girls. Sign this petition and add your voice to this call for change.”
Sign Jones’s petition at http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/daily-mail-mailonline-stop-the-daily-mail-sexualising-children.