I've Heard That Song Before

The Times - 12-05-06
by Richard Ford

Blacks and Asians fear losing jobs to new migrants

Working-class blacks and Asians are just as likely as white people to resent new migrants as they fear that they will compete for jobs, housing and other services, according to a report published yesterday.

It gave warning that such attitudes could cause problems for community relations as 70 per cent of the black and minority ethnic population live in the 88 most deprived wards.

In addition, many of the places to which asylum-seekers are dispersed are the most deprived areas of the country, such as parts of Liverpool, Glasgow and Hull.

The study also suggests that new migrants are being exploited by employers in jobs that traditionally pay low wages. Ministers are also paying insufficient attention to the impact of new migration on community relations, the study said.

Ministers have already imposed quotas on the number of Bulgarians and Romanians who will be allowed to enter Britain to work when the two former Soviet bloc states join the EU in January.

The quotas were imposed amid growing public concern and worry among Labour backbenchers at the level of immigration in recent years and the strain it is putting on schools and other public services.

Yesterday’s report said that though there was a lack of qualitative information on the impact of new migration, the survey suggested that it was not diversity but immigration that preoccupies people.

The report, Refugees and other new migrants, said:

White and black minority ethnic respondents displayed similar attitudes towards recent migrants which corresponds to reports that tensions do not necessarily arise along racial lines.

Rather, where competition over scarce and finite resources and services is the greatest, relations with newcomers are most likely to be negatively affected.

Website: timesonline.co.uk

The Spectator - 11/11/06
by Rod Liddle

Not funny, but it struck home

Apparently almost a million British citizens have left the country since 2000, to live somewhere else. Last year, according to the Office for National Statistics, 380,000 people left Britain, of whom about 200,000 were British citizens. At the same time, though, 565,000 immigrants arrived in Britain, the overwhelming majority from the Indian subcontinent (largely Pakistan and Bangladesh).

These facts were reported as if they were entirely unrelated. Nobody dared to venture that there was perhaps a very direct and even causal relationship between the record numbers of British people leaving the country and the record numbers of non-British people coming in. This seems to me a bit of an oddity, because, colloquially, one hears emphatic verification of such a causal relationship almost every day

I know a couple of people who have recently left Britain and the reasons they gave were very simple: we’re being flooded with immigrants, it’s madness, it is not our country any more. Sometimes these views are preceded by the more polite, ‘We don’t like the way the country has changed’, and that they merely wish for a better life. There will then be a quick rundown of just how things have changed -- too crowded, don’t want the kids brought up in schools where the majority language is Urdu, don’t want to be blown up on the Tube, etc. -- a litany of complaints leading in one direction only. And then, after a while, when they think no one else is listening, it comes: too many immigrants who seem to get preferential treatment over the indigenous Brits. You know, I ain’t racist, but . . .

It may be that my friends are wholly untypical of the other Brits who have left, but I would guess that the reverse is true. They are working-class, hard-working, low-paid and disillusioned. They are not mad on the huge influx (80,000 last year) of immigrants from Eastern Europe and especially Poland. These incomers depress local wages, apart from anything else - talk to your local English sparkie or plumber about his views on the recent competition from Gdansk and Bratislava.

But that isn’t their main source of discontent by a long way. Their real objection is to those arrivals -- a city the size of Sunderland every year -- from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Somalia. That is, people who are a different colour, and from formidably different cultures, who may speak no English at all and who may have no wish to integrate with the rest of us. That’s truly, unapologetically racist, I suppose. If they were opposed to immigration per se, one could argue that it was a laudably non-discriminatory state of mind. But, in fact, they are very discriminating indeed.

What surprised me, at first, was that nobody seemed prepared to report this very common and increasingly prevalent sentiment. After all, one could write about these Brits fleeing the country and state the likely reasons without necessarily concurring with them. Good riddance to these awful people, one might cheerfully conclude. But even for our most free-thinking and dependable think-tank, Civitas, this was a bridge too far.

Its spokesman, Robert Whelan, ventured that perhaps the parlous state of the health service was to blame for the exodus. You know, I suspect the majority of those who left have had next to no contact with the NHS: they are, in the main, pre-middle-aged and healthy. No, it seems patently clear to me that an important reason -- perhaps one of several reasons but significant nonetheless -- that so many Brits are getting the hell out is that they think there are too many non-European foreigners here, and underneath it rankles that these foreigners may abuse our hospitality and be treated rather better by the authorities than are the indigenous working-class whites.

( More )
Related Post: 12/13/05

itv.com - 10/13/06

Army chief calls for Iraq pullout

The new head of the British Army has said troops in Iraq are making the security situation worse and that they should be withdrawn "soon".

In an unprecedented attack on Government policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt blames British troop presence in Iraq for turning tolerance there into "intolerance".

And he blames the Iraq war for driving the problems associated with the wider war on terror. He said: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

Gen Dannatt, who became Chief of the General Staff in August, said:

We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: "It's important that people remember that we are in Iraq at the express wish of the democratically elected Iraqi government, to support them under the mandate of a UN resolution."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman added: "We have a clear strategy in Iraq.

"We are there with our international partners, in support of the democratically elected Government of Iraq, under a clear UN mandate."

Andrew Burgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, said:

He has articulated what we have been saying for a long period now: that the presence of the British forces is exacerbating the security problems in Iraq itself.

We would be honoured to invite him to speak at the next Stop the War demonstration.

He has made a very powerful case for the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq and he is exactly right.

Website: itv.com

BNP - 09/14/06
by News Team

Labour Party silences anti-war protest

New Labour cronies cannot stop themselves widening the gulf that exists between them and the vast majority of the British electorate who are sick and tired of the criminal gang that masquerades as a legitimate political party.

Another display of contempt for the British majority and the process of democracy comes after Labour officials today announced that grieving families of the Iraq war dead will face a ban on holding a protest outside the party's forthcoming annual conference in Manchester.

Members of Military Families Against The War applied to hold a small peace camp near the conference later this month but officials on Labour-run Manchester council told them they could not do so for 'health and safety' reasons. However Greater Manchester Police have said that the protest could go ahead as they did not view it as a threat to security.

Defiant

Lily Walker, of Stalybridge in Greater Manchester, whose son and daughter-in-law are army medics about to leave for their third tour of duty in Iraq, admitted she was walking a tightrope between airing her views and supporting her family. But she said:

More and more I think our forces are there for no good reason. They are being pushed to the limit, with tour after tour, and don’t have the proper equipment. This is what they are telling us. I am not answerable to the army and will say what I like. We are determined to make a stand while people’s eyes are on Manchester. ^{Here! Here!}

Dissent against Blair’s involvement in an illegal war in Iraq and the lies he spun in order to take British troops into the conflict is widespread but Labour remains prepared to stifle any opposition.

( More )

Reuters - 09/10/06

Lebanon's top Shi'ite cleric said on Sunday Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is on a tour of the Middle East, was not welcome in Lebanon because of his support for Israel and the United States.


Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah criticised Blair for not calling for an early truce in Israel's 34-day war with Shi'ite Hizbollah guerrillas and for allowing U.S. weapons to be shipped via Britain to Israel for use against Lebanon.

Fadlallah said in a statement:

The Lebanese government should have told Blair that he is not wanted in Lebanon, so that he -- and those like him -- would know that we are not so naive as to welcome him when he has contributed to killing us and slaughtering our children.

Blair arrived in Israel on Saturday and Lebanese officials have said he will visit Beirut on Monday for talks on a U.N. truce which ended the fighting, triggered by Hizbollah's cross-border capture of two Israeli soldiers in July.

The conflict cost the lives of nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon -- mainly civilians -- and 157 Israelis -- mostly soldiers.

During the war Britain allowed U.S. flights loaded with bombs for Israel to refuel at an airport in Scotland. Blair also drew criticism at home for standing with U.S. President George W. Bush in opposing calls for an early ceasefire.

Website: reuters.co.uk

---

The Foreign Secretary spoke his mind on the Middle East — and became a target in Washington.

---

The Times - 08/07/06
by William Rees-Mogg

How the US fired Jack Straw

WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced.

I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon.
- - -

Yesterday the Mail on Sunday went back for a second look at the story in the light of subsequent events, particularly the Israeli counter-attack on Lebanon. A US source told them that “Mr Straw’s views did not find favour in the White House and its concerns were passed on to the British Government”. That confirms that the Foreign Secretary was effectively dismissed by an American President.

This is not entirely unprecedented, but the precedent is a bad one. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain wanted to pursue his policy of appeasement, which was opposed by the young Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden. Chamberlain conspired with the Italian Ambassador in London, Count Grandi, at a Downing Street meeting. Eden was virtually forced to resign on the appeasement issue.

I do not know of any other example of a British Prime Minister allowing a foreign power, friendly or otherwise, to decide a senior Cabinet appointment.

Mr Straw was in a relatively strong political position at the time that he was moved to the job of Leader of the House of Commons. His statement on Iran must have been calculated. He was probably right to think that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran, because that might have led to a critical rise in the oil price — experts talk of a price of between $100 and $150 a barrel. It could also have led to a Shia revolt in Iraq. If Iran had been attacked, by the US or by Israel, Mr Straw might have resigned rather than give Britain’s support.

It is also possible that Mr Straw was moved sideways because Mr Blair already had preliminary information that Israel planned to hit back hard at any aggression by Hezbollah. When the Hezbollah kidnapping and the Israeli counter-attack took place, the United States and Britain jointly refused to call for an immediate ceasefire.

The fighting, with its terrible impact on Lebanon, has now continued for four weeks. There is an allegation that Israel’s plans for the counter-strike were given to the Americans, and that information was passed to the Prime Minister. These questions will be pressed if Parliament is recalled. Obviously Mr Straw’s potential resignation in these circumstances would have been very difficult for the Prime Minister.
- - -

THE AMERICAN NEOCONS, including Donald Rumsfeld and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, still take a more messianic view on the possibility of democratising the Middle East.

The Bush-Blair partnership is still poised uneasily between the hawks of the Pentagon and the doves of
the State Department.

It was a bad mistake for Tony Blair to sack Jack Straw, who was handling this divergence rather well. It was
also an insult to our national independence.

The “who knew what and where” issue will not go away. If there is no immediate and effective ceasefire in Lebanon, there will be increasingly urgent demands for the recall of Parliament. Lebanon will be raised at the Labour Party conference, as will Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Labour Party is pro-Palestinian, critical of Israel, and hostile to the Bush Administration. Many Labour Members of Parliament want a new leader, if only to save their seats. The annual July political crisis started in April this year, and will still be running in November.

Read Article

The number of licenses approved for the export of weapons to countries accused by Britain of violating human rights has risen significantly in the past year, The British Guardian newspaper reported Thursday morning.

According to the report, licenses to British companies authorizing arms sales to Israel totaled 25 million pounds. The weapons sold include armored vehicles and missile components. The sales approved to Israel are the highest since 1999.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia are among 20 countries included in the annual report by British foreign offices as "countries of concern" on the issue of human rights. Despite that, they are able to purchase military equipment from Great Britain.

The British government has approved arms sales to 14 out of 17 countries currently involved in armed conflict.

The group Campaign Against Arms Trade said: "The [British] government has committed itself to leading international negotiations on an arms trade treaty to stop global arms flows to war zones and repressive regimes."

"Yet in the last twelve months it has licensed weapons exports precisely to these regimes ... The government must stop arming the world's human rights abusers."

Read Article