Immigration U.K. Labour Party Policy on Immigration. Ed Miliband.
What is the truth ?
Ed Miliband was ridiculed last night over his desperate attempts to cosy up to loony leftie Russell Brand.
The Labour leader was accused of putting on a “mockney” accent when interviewed at the anti-capitalist comedian’s £2million London home in a video chat.
He stunned the country by agreeing to meet Brand, who has described Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls as a “clicky-wristed snidey ****”.
Critics said the Labour boss, who could be representing the UK on the world stage within days, had demeaned himself by going through with the interview.
And angry Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday described Brand, who also claimed all politicians are frauds and liars, as a joke.
A 90-second trailer of Mr Miliband’s bizarre chat was released on Brand’s YouTube channel The Trews.
Mr Miliband yesterday faced a wave of criticism for agreeing to meet former drug addict Brand, who has 9.5million Twitter followers, on Monday evening.
Aides tried frantically to keep the event under wraps, but a leaked snap showed Mr Miliband getting into his chauffeur-driven car under cover of darkness after the chat.
Brand has previously called for an “orgy” of banker bashing, urged people not to pay their taxes and said that profit is “a filthy word”.
He once demanded “a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment”.
Mr Cameron hit out at Brand at an event in Enfield, North London, saying:
“He says don’t vote. That’s his whole view, ‘Don’t vote, it only encourages them’ or something. It’s funny, right? It’s funny, but politics and life and elections and jobs and the economy, it’s not a joke.
David Cameron said –
“Russell Brand’s a joke. – Ed Miliband, hanging out with Russell Brand, he’s a joke.
“This is not funny. This is about the election, this is about our future, this is about jobs, it’s about the economy, it’s about the recovery. I haven’t got time to hang out with Russell Brand. This is more important, these are real people.”
Ukip leader Nigel Farage, who clashed with Brand on the BBC’s Question Time, said he was an “entirely negative influence on British politics”.
He added: “To tell young people not to vote is shameful.”
Mr Miliband said he “profoundly” disagreed with Brand’s call not to vote, but insisted he had been right to meet him.
He said: “Some people were saying the campaign was too boring so I thought it would make it more interesting.
“I’m going to go anywhere and talk to anyone to take that message out to people about how we can change this country so it works for working people again. Russell Brand asked me for an interview and I was very, very happy to accept.”
Mr Balls, who previously called Brand a “Pound Shop Ben Elton”, said: “There are lots of people who watch his channel. If Russell Brand wants to do an interview and Ed Miliband goes and does it, that’s good.”
Brand hit back at the PM on Twitter.
Poking fun at the Tory leader for getting the name of his favourite football team wrong, he said: “Don’t be jealous Dave — I’ll run into you at West Ham.”
Mr Miliband and deputy Harriet Harman had already palled up with hard-left SNP chief Nicola Sturgeon, Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams and union boss Len McCluskey.
SNP Candidate Wants Britain to Suffer Economic Ruin if they get in a Coalition with Labour
Hope not hate. Unite Against Fascism. The shocking truth revealed that will cause the Public to question why this is being allowed and in who’s name.
It makes little political sense to argue that UAF and Hope Note are “just the same” or identical.
Yes, we agree that both groups are “toxic” (as posh Leftists say of every critic of Islam and all members of the EDL).
Nonetheless, there are some differences which may be worthwhile to note.
Because of these ideological and strategic differences, it’s no wonder that Trotskyist groups (such as UAF) and communist groups (such as Hope Not Hate) have always been at each other’s throats.
(In fact rival Trotskyist groups have often been at each other’s throats too.)
For example, the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) is constantly slagging off the SWP.
(Then again, so too is Alliance for Workers’ Liberty – and this group is Trotskyist.)
So it will come as no surprise that UAF-SWP doesn’t have much time for Hope Not Hate.
Take this example – one of many – of a UAF/Hope Not Hate rift.
In this case UAF came clean about its differences with Hope Not Hate (or Searchlight) in a document called ‘Lessons of the 2009 election’, UAF wrote:
“There have been many debates over strategy in the anti-fascist movement…The two poles in this debate have been Searchlight, on the one hand, and the UAF, on the other.”
So what are these profound ideological and strategic differences between UAF and Hope Not Hate (Searchlight)?
The said document continued in this manner:
“Searchlight walked out of the UAF some years ago, splitting the anti-fascist movement, when it was criticised for making concessions to racism by giving credence to [racist] myths….”
This highlights one of the reasons why UAF, being Trotskyist rather than old-style communist, is far more extreme than Hope Not Hate.
Because Trotskyists believe that “the ends justify the means” (Trotskyists justify this by saying that all their many enemies also believe it – thus the motto itself is justified by the Trotskyist end), and that revolution and radicalisation must be brought about “by any means necessary”
(The black machismo of Malcolm X has always appealed to white, middle-class, effete Leftists), and that “lying for justice” (i.e. Trotskyist taqiyya) is completely acceptable and even encouraged, it will come as no surprise that UAF won’t offer a single criticism of any atrocity or crime committed by a non-British non-white person or persons – ever.
This is quite literally the case for the ideological fundamentalists and zealots who make up UAF.
You will simply never understand the perverse alliances it forms and perverse causes it fights for.
Trotskyist zealotry leads inexorably to such perverse and absurd positions/actions.
And, in a certain sense, Trotskyists pride themselves on being extreme because they believe that such extremism (not a word they’d never use about themselves – only others) is precisely what’s required to “smash the state” or to “smash racism and fascism”.
In other words, fascist actions and views, as well as alliances with brown fascists, is required by Trotskyist groups in order to further revolution (radicalisation) destabilisation or not to “side with the state” – and yet it is believed that they get community grants and are Tax Payer funded.
UAF went in further for the kill in the case of Nick Lowles.
Nick Lowles wrote an an article, in Searchlight, called ‘Tackling Taboo Issues’, to which UAF responded:
“It did not confront racism, and still less, Islamophobia head on in its campaign, instead over some years [of] making concessions to racist myths….”
Here again UAF is parading its Trotskyist purity and extremism.
Again, only by being extreme – and taking extreme views – can “racism”, “fascism”, etc. be “smashed” (a favorite word of the SWP).
Thus any critical comment about any Muslim or black is quite literally racist and/or fascist to UAF – or, at the very least, it’s a “concession to racist myths”.
Trotskyist logic, as ever, is brutally simple.
Trotskyist groups always take simple and extreme positions on virtually all subjects and this case was no exception.
That crudity and fundamentalism is required for the revolutionary cause. Anything position or analysis with even an ounce of subtlety or complexity would quite simply work against the revolution or against “smashing fascism”.
In response to all this UAF Hope Not Hate-bashing, Nick Lowles wrote to UAF and demanded a public apology.
He even threatened UAF and gave it a deadline within which it was expected to apologise for accusing him of “personally of pandering to racism, spreading racist myths and writing material that would not be out of place on a BNP leaflet”.
If UAF didn’t comply, Lowles said at the time, he would
“pursue this matter further, up to and including legal action against those responsible for the document”. And one way he threatened to “pursue this matter further” was by raising the issue with the TUC.
As it happened, no apology was ever given by the ideological zealots of UAF.
Some Differences Between Hope Not Hate & Unite Against Fascism
|Gerry Gable and Tony Benn|
1a) Hope Not Hate: for a start, HnH was founded and originally led – or at least Searchlight was (Searchlight and Hope Not Hate split in 2011) – by an out-and-out communist.
In other words, by a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) – Gerry Gable.
Nick Lowles himself was a member of various ultra-Leftist groups in the 1980s and 1990s (such as Anti-Fascist Action, Red Action and Socialist Organiser ).
This is not to say that all members or supporters of HnH are communists.
Many will be Trotskyists or “progressives”.
A very small number may even be apolitical. However, what matters with all political groups (as with the EDL and the Conservative Party) is not the political and personal nature of every single member, but the leadership and the broad ideologies they follow.
1b) UAF: whereas Searchlight was connected to the CPGB in the early days, UAF is literally the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
UAF is not just “strongly connected to the SWP”, as some have put it. UAF is simply a SWP front.
Even the leaders of UAF couldn’t possibly deny that (even if they wouldn’t use the word “front”).
Because the SWP is Trotskyist, then that means that UAF is Trotskyist too.
2a) Hope Not Hate: because of its broad communist sympathies (or, I should say, its commitment to communist parties and the Labour Party), HnH is far less extreme than UAF.
For example, it doesn’t have a specific ideological commitment to street violence (as well as violence generally) as the SWP-UAF has.
This will partly explain why HnH is more closely connected to the Labour Party and the Daily Mirror than UAF is.
2b) UAF: Trotskyists such as UAF have a political fetish for violence.
It’s actually written into Trotskyist ideology and I don’t only mean its commitment to the mass violence which will occur during and after a revolution.
UAF, like all Trotskyist groups, believes in two mantras:
“By any means necessary” and “The ends justify the means.”
This explains everything about both the SWP and UAF: the violence, the “lies for justice”.
The support of Islamic misogyny, Islamist violence, Islamic terrorism, halal meat, single-sexed schools, FGM, the niqab and burqa, Muslim grooming gangs, the IRA, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Yusuf al-Qaradawi , the Muslim Brotherhood “revolution” in Egypt, the Sudanese Islamist genocide against Christians and black animists, etc ect
Beginning to get the picture ?
Anything goes if it works against capitalism or the West (which more or less fuse in the minds of Trotskyists).
3a) Hope Not Hate: the “class structure” of HnH is overwhelmingly middle class.
However, as I said earlier about its apolitical members, there will of course be a handful of working class supporters and members too.
Communist groups have always been more closely connected to the working class than Trotskyist groups.
Indeed it would be silly to deny that in the first half of the twentieth century, and to some extent after, there were many working-class communists and members of communist parties.
(All the way up to Arthur Scargill in the 1970s and 1980s.)
However, compared to non-Leftist working class, they still made up a small percentage of that class. Despite that, HnH doesn’t even have that small percentage any more either.
3b) UAF: Unite Against Fascism is almost completely middle class.
In fact, when it comes to the SWP, the higher you go up the hierarchy the more likely the members and leaders will be upper-middle class, rather than middle class (or members of the much-hated, by Trots, petitebourgeoisie).
Though many British communists have also been upper-middle class too, it seems that Trotskyist groups have a penchant for attracting extremely posh and privileged people.
From experience, I don’t think I’ve ever met an activist of the SWP, or other Trotskyist groups, who wasn’t posh and who didn’t have that obligatory and often fake Estuary English glottal-stop accent.
(They all literally sounded as if they all came from exactly the same class and exactly the same place.)
Again, as with HnH, there are no doubt a handful of working class members of UAF and the SWP.
They may well clean the homes of the leadership and bow to their Soviet masters by trying to prove that they are completely Politically Correct and have absolutely no impure or Politically incorrect thoughts about Trotskyism, Marxism, Communism, or even the 100 Million deaths it was responsible for in the last Century, and the untold misery and suffering that this evil heinous ideology has wrought upon Mankind.
Higher intelligence is associated with Right Wing common sense and sound reasoning, a statistical study has found.
But, he says, intelligence doesn’t correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years.
“the Right Wing have always been of sound reasoning, it is a simple fact of Nature that the Left Wing themselves just do not get.
But that is hardly surprising.
The Left Wing are just not equipped intellectually to grasp the Natural law of evolution and the progression of true Political intelligence”
He said –
“General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions,” says Cosavitz.
“As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles that benefit one’s own people, as with Nationalist outlooks”
Data from the institute of National Political Thought, supports Cosavitz’s hypothesis.
Young adults who are subject to respectable ‘Right Wing’ thought and reasoning, have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as ‘Left Wing’ have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, Nationalism is a by product of the natural human tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events as a unified group.
“Humans are evolutionarily designed to be Nationalist, and they believe in unity because they are proud in unity and identity” says Cosavitz.
This innate bias toward Nationalism served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and their clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.
But the Left Wing types never did overcome the intellectual inability to mix with normal people and remained ‘outsiders’ and hence ‘weird’ in some way to the rest of the clan.
Due to low intelligence and the recognition of being ‘different’ in some way, they are still ‘outsiders’ today.
Hence, Left Wing types became outcasts and the unwanted non-productive anti social types, today we see these types as the degenerate Anti Fascists, or the very lower end scale of society, as in Marxists and Anarchists.
More intelligent Right Wing children are more likely to grow up to go against the ridiculous tendency to believe in Politically Correct nonsense and to see straight through this pathetic immature garbage, and they move forward in life without falling prey to Left Wing brainwashing or lies.
Young adults who identify themselves as ‘Far Right’ have an average IQ of 109-12 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as ‘Far Left’ have an average IQ of 90-2 during adolescence.
The Daily Bale has many Muslim followers and we strongly agree that Islamophobia is wrong, but we feel that our Muslim followers would also agree that –
Definitions of –
A Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, – according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.
“We are going to make it an aggravated crime”
“We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,”
What on earth is going on here ???
Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.
“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.
Miliband stated –
“that Muslims should not face racial and religious discrimination when it comes to employment or suffer the most because of the austerity cuts “It is part of the law that is prohibited. We are going to have racial equality across the Government. We will enforce it.
I will always engage with people. I really value my relationship with the Muslim community and it is a relationship I would nurture as a Prime Minister.”
There are fears that this could cause a Cromwellian type resentment towards the State and Labour in particular, and serious discontent amongst tens of millions of Britons.
The Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a –
“zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism.
“We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.
Despite voting for the new Counter Terrorism Act last month, Labour was also critical of the way the Government has cut funding and narrowed the focus of the controversial Prevent extremism programme, saying that much of the work to
“engage Muslim communities has been lost.”
“I want to overhaul Prevent programme,” Miliband told The Muslim News.
The Muslim community is as an “incredibly important, incredibly rich, incredible asset to our country” and so it was really important to put on record.
“The reality is that the people I talk to in the Muslim community are absolutely full square with the idea that we’ve got to make sure that we work with our young people to stop them being dragged into this perverted (terrorist) ideology.”
“The way to do it is the Prevent programme working with communities.
You got to do the things that once this ideology takes hold you try to disrupt it. For me that is the answer.
We want to see how the Prevent programme is community focused.”
Challenged about the way particularly Muslim charities have been targeted by banks and discredited by the media, Miliband said in his wide ranging interview that he was
“not in favour of demonising anyone (and) that is the wrong thing to do.”
“What I am in favour is the Charity Commission working without fear or favour.
We got to build right across the Muslim community.
There is absolutely shared purpose and shared desire to deal with a small minority in our country who get tempted to violent extremism. That is what we got to build on and it is about working with them.”
On the Trojan Horse scandal, the Labour leader said the reality is that the –
“root of this problem lies in proper accountability in our schools.”
“We are going to have high standards locally. That will make sure that every school has proper oversight. When there is no proper oversight things can go wrong in schools. The best way to stop that happening is proper oversight in our schools.
You need proper accountability. The answer to this is not to run thousands of schools from the centre of the Government but to have local accountability in schools.”
With regard to foreign policy, Miliband confirmed that Labour would have supported the recognition of a Palestinian State in last year’s UN vote. His Party’s support was why Parliament backed the principle, he said.
“We would do everything we can to work for a two state solution which is a viable Palestinian state alongside security for Israel,”
he added but also pointed out that he personally was “not in favour of sanctions” against Israel.
To find a solution, he argued engagement was needed with both sides but the “reality is that we had a British Government for the last five years who had disengaged from this issue, had washed its hands off this issue.”
“I’m not going to wash my hands off this issue. I will speak out about the settlements. I spoke out about Israel’s incursion into Gaza. Some people didn’t like that I spoke out. I did speak out and I will continue to speak out and engaging with the issue. We have the American Administration who also wants to engage and wants to push forward two-state solution. We are going to partner with them to do that.”
He was dismissive that Labour’s manifesto commitment to arrest and act against those returning from fighting in Syria would be hypocritical by targeting only Muslims as it is happening now.
“When I am Prime Minister there will be one law for everybody. Full treatment for everybody,” he insisted.
Likewise Miliband was adamant
“that Muslims should not face racial and religious discrimination when it comes to employment or suffer the most because of the austerity cuts “It is part of the law that is prohibited. We are going to have racial equality across the Government. We will enforce it.”
“We will tackle deprivation. We will build homes, get rid of bedroom tax, raise minimum wages, build better jobs for people, have a fairer social security system,” he also insisted.
Throughout his interview, Miliband insisted that he took “extreme care” in what he said but it still did not stop him in using the generic term of “Islamist terrorism” and inferring the cause was religious rather than political when suggesting more than once it was based on “perverted ideology.”
The last Labour Government stopped engaging with many Muslim organisations at the end of its tenor and the boycott has been continued by the Conservative-led Government. Questioned about it, he assertively said he would engage.
“I will always engage with people. I really value my relationship with the Muslim community and it is a relationship I would nurture as a Prime Minister.”
In the past, the majority of Muslims in Britain have often tended to vote more for Labour. It is a party that has always tended to have the most Muslim MPs, a trend that is expected to continue with the number expected to grow to 11.
“It is very important that people vote in the general elections. Stakes are incredibly high in this elections,” the Opposition Leader said.
“If you look at what I have done as Leader of the Labour Party I have learnt the lesson of Iraq war, I said no to military action in Syria in summer of 2013 when it was controversial. I have moved forward in the position to causes of Palestinian people.”
“Our Government will be absolutely committed to equality not just in law but in fact too. We are committed to race equality strategy. That is why we are committed to breaking down barriers of discrimination,” he further said.
“If you want the Government to stand up for working people it will be a Labour Government. So I urge people to vote in the elections because it is going to be a close election and if people don’t turn out to vote the danger is that you end up with Conservatives in power. So I will ask people to go out and vote.”
Ed Miliband: Labour plans to cap rent rises
Brent Hoberman, the co-founder of Lastminute.com and a member of the last Labour government’s business advisory council, warned that Mr Miliband
“would attempt to repeat the failed socialist experiment that has left the French economy in the doldrums”
His comments followed a series of damning interventions from captains of industry who had queued up to attack Labour’s economic policies and warn of the consequences if Mr Miliband enters No 10 in May.
As the party’s damaging row with business had then at that time entered a third day, Mr Miliband came under fire from Digby Jones, trade minister under Gordon Brown.
Lord Jones, the former director general of the CBI, said:
‘We cannot have political leaders who are creating the wrong sort of mood music, that says we do not like business. I don’t want to be France. I don’t want people thinking that they do not want to come here. I want business to want to be here.’
Business leader Peter Hargreaves, who co-founded the FTSE100 investment giant Hargreaves Lansdown, said –
“a Labour government would be a disaster for the economy and cause entrepreneurs and the wealthy to flee the country”
‘If the Labour Party got into power they would leave a monstrous deficit and will bankrupt the country.’
Former Chairman of Pizza Express Luke Johnson said it would be a disaster if Labour –
‘carried out the policies they’re suggesting’.
The former Channel 4 chairman said: ‘Take freezing energy prices – an example of how the Opposition are ignorant of the way markets and capitalism works.’
Mr Hoberman – a government trade ambassador, warned that Labour’s
‘anti-business rhetoric’ was ‘scaring business’.
The internet guru and tech entrepreneur said:
‘Should Labour get elected then what we may well find is that it will be similar to what Hollande did in France, in that he sends businesses away and investment out of the country and then he does a U-turn and it’s almost too late.’
He accused Labour of ‘anti-business populism’ and failing to recognise that many firms ‘contribute huge amounts’.
The damaging war of words between Labour and business had began when Boots boss Stefano Pessina warned that a
“Labour government would be a ‘catastrophe”
Even more extreme Left-wing Labour MPs accused their party of not being radical enough and insisted they would push for ‘real Labour policies’ if Ed Miliband gets into Downing Street in a coalition.
A group led by John McDonnell wanted to meet trade unions, Left-wing academics and campaign groups wanted to decide what their demands would be in negotiations with other parties.
Mr McDonnell said: ‘Many Labour MPs, candidates and activists will want to campaign for a
“more radical agenda of policies than we have seen so far”
‘Many voters will also want to know that there are people within the Labour party arguing for real Labour policies.’
His comments had sparked a furious response from Labour, whose business spokesman Chuka Umunna questioned Mr Pessina’s tax affairs and Labour MPs said they would not listen to a multi-millionaire who lived in ‘a big mansion’.
Stuart Rose, the former Marks & Spencer boss, accused Mr Miliband of being a ‘1970s throwback’
Lord Rose, a Tory peer, said Labour’s ‘business bashing’ could curb investment and lead to –
‘shuttered shop fronts, empty high streets and lengthening dole queues’.
This sparked an angry response from Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who accused Lord Rose of ‘playing party politics’ and making the claims ‘because he’s a Tory’.
But the rush of critical opinion from so many business leaders will be harder for Labour to shrug off.
Charlie Mullins, who set up Pimlico Plumbers in 1979, also went on the attack, accusing Mr Miliband of being
‘clueless about business’.
The tycoon said:
‘I’m one business owner who isn’t going to keep quiet about the destructive power of having a business-hating government with Ed Miliband at the helm.’
A report by Deutsche Bank warned that British –
British families will face higher borrowing costs under Labour as interest rates earlier to offset extra government spending.