A fortnightly review by John Bean of some of the issues the Brit Dems would tackle
Don’t Mention London’s White Exodus
Perhaps the most frightening statistic in the 2011 Census is that over the previous decade London witnessed an exodus of 600,000 whites. This is equal to the whole population of cities such as Sheffield, Glasgow or Nottingham. Imagine just one of those cities losing its total population with little comment from our politicians or the media.
The BBC, of course, had something to say. This was in an article on the web by home editor Mark Easton. There was nothing to worry about, he said, as London became more and more multicultural and “vibrant”. It was a cause for celebration that whites were now in a minority in a mixture of different racial groups.
Commenting on Easton’s view, Graeme Archer had an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph (23.2.13) where he said it was not racist to discuss the exodus. Here is a key paragraph where he sarcastically comments on the BBC thinking:
“That the proportion of white people in the borough of Barking and Dagenham has dropped from four fifths to less than a half in a decade is nothing more than the natural desire of increasingly prosperous people to retire to the seaside. I‘m paraphrasing Easton a little, but that was more or less the suggestion in his commentary. It’s a rising tide of prosperity that first flushed the Eastenders from Bethnal Green to Dagenham, and it’s the inexorable rise in property values that leads their descendants to move from metropolitan Essex to that beautiful county’s coastline.”
I remember street corner meetings in Bethnal Green where I warned East Enders who had just survived the Blitz that the growth of immigration could present equally harmful problems for the future. I did not appreciate how devastating they would be. The borough now has a mayor who obtained his post through the aid – financial and otherwise – of an extreme fundamentalist Moslem group. Hate crimes against remaining whites, including attacks on gays and white women wearing short skirts, are becoming commonplace.
Labour, of course, opened the floodgates to immigration. Cameron’s election promise of reducing it to “tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands”, has proved to be so much hot air. A classic example was his pledge during his recent visit to India that he would make changes to the application system that would make it quicker and cheaper for Indians to come to Britain for jobs or as students. We already run the largest visa operation in the world in India, processing more than more 400,000 applications a year and granting nine out of 10. Are they all for genuine students or, with the right training, jobs that we cannot fill ourselves ?
Orwell’s Newspeak at BBC
The BBC’s left-wing bias is already legendary and one of the wonders of the modern world. Now, without any recruitment process, James Purnell, the former Labour culture secretary, is appointed by Tony Hall, the incoming director-general, to become the BBC’s strategy chief – and at nearly £300,000 a year.
What is going on makes a mockery of the BBC’s claim to be a ‘balanced and objective’ organisation . It’s not just its news output but its programmes in general that make it more akin to George Orwell’s Newspeak in Nineteen Eighty-four.
Rob Wilson, the Conservative MP for Reading East, said of the appointment: “Many have long had suspicions about a metropolitan, Leftist bias to the BBC’s output, particularly in news. With the BBC under greater scrutiny in recent months, I find it hard to think why the BBC is an appropriate choice for a leadership role.”
Matthew Sinclair, of the Taxpayers’ Alliance said: “This is an extortionate amount of licence fee payers’ money to splash on yet another BBC senior executive. It says something about BBC pay at the top that Purnell is now earning twice as much as he was when he was a Secretary of State”.
Of course you don’t have to watch BBC News. You can always try ITV News. But that’s almost as left-wing as the Beeb and never misses a trick in popping in a few ethnics in school or NHS shots, just to keep reminding you Britain is now a multiculti land.
Why’s this, you may ask? Wait until the end of a news program and when the credits role you could well find that the News Editor is Parminder Sandhu. He’s not on every evening, but keep looking. He probably thinks he is doing a good job. Technically, perhaps he is. But surely he would not be human if a little bit of Indian bias did not creep in to his presentations of our news.?
We Pay For Wind Farm Subsidies
On the 18th of February , during a period of low to medium wind, 4,300 of our wind turbines together provided just 0.1 per cent of Britain’s electricity. This power output was a paltry 31MW compared with the 2,200MW we can get from one gas-fired plant, or two coal-fired plants. (The BDP would only support guaranteed clean-coal plants)
We are committed to carry on with this highly expensive gamble to meet our future energy requirements because Labour’s Ed Miliband when he was at the Department of Energy and Climate Change put through a Climate Change Bill conforming to EU requirements that legally binds the UK to cut CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
The Coalition Government knows how vastly expensive wind power is turning out to be. Its solution is to rig the market with taxes inflicted on the electricity bills of householders and industry so that wind farms seem competitive. Land owners (among which you will find quite a few Tory and Lib Dem party members) will continue to do very nicely with up to £50,000 a year rent, depending upon how many of these bird-killing monstrosities are built on their land.
Meanwhile, the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a think tank that campaigns against the cost of wind energy, revealed last month that energy companies from Europe, the US and China will receive more than £100 billion in subsidies from British consumers to pay for a new generation of offshore wind farms. Ninety per cent of our wind farms will then be under foreign ownership. How can this possibly be justified?
The British Democrats would support renewables in our energy mix. This would include nuclear power, wave power, estuary barrages suitably designed to cause minimum disturbance to wild life, solar energy and geothermal power.
Enid Blyton “Is Racist”
Children’s books are now subject to constant inspection by the politically correct and ‘anti-racist’ inspectors. The work of gifted writers that have enthralled the young for many years must be accepted for the time in which they were written – mainly over fifty years ago. None more so than Enid Blyton, famous for her Noddy and Famous Five books.
The title of one of her books, The Three Golliwogs, may have offended Guardian readers and Hampstead literati, but it is doubtful that black people in Britain originally gave it much thought. But all is well, the title has been changed to The Three Bold Pixies.
Enid Blyton’s home town of Beaconsfield is planning a festival to celebrate their famous writer. Anthony Mealing, a local, is opposing this on the grounds that Blyton was “racist and sexist”.
I would suggest that a way of restoring peace in Beaconsfield would be to get one of the accepted PC fashionable writers, or a team of them, to write a special Famous Five book entitled Famous Five Moslem Ladies Win a Noddy Car.
Here’s a suggestion for the front cover.
Don’t forget Sky News John.
A week or so back when covering the news that our ancestors criminal records dating back to 1790 something have been made available for those interested in researching their past Sky News took it upon themselves to interview people in the street about whether they will be interested in pursuing that. Sky interviewed three people – an Asian, an Oriental and an African; and no I am not joking – they really did. Perhaps however it was a Freudian slip on Sky’s part since it implied only ethnic immigrants are criminals!
Good to see JB’s Notebook back. I used to enjoy reading it in the old mag.
It says a great deal about the gross, decades-long bias of the BBC that if someone from the BBC had said something negative about white flight from London we should have been amazed. As it is, Easton’s ludicrously optimistic, factually incorrect views are totally in line with the pro-immigration, pro-multicultural spin we have come to expect from this ‘impartial’ and ‘balanced’ organisation over the years..
The great mystery is; How is that this organisation continues to survive?
Why hasn’t it been privatised and sold off like so many other nationalised industries ?
Its continued existence must be in someone’s interests and I think we know whose. They certainly aren’t those of the 49% of the population who according to a Populus opinion poll the results of which were published by the hard-left Searchlight organisation last year would welcome a new ‘far right ‘ party and whose opinions are never, repeat never heard on the BBC except in the most derogatory terms…
@Tim Heydon. I believe the BBC receive funding (2 grants per year?) from the EU. Thereby breaking their charter as a publically owned company. Some people have been using this fact to successfully challenge the payment of the licence fee in court.
This is why you never will see or hear anything anti- EU from the Brussels Broadcasting corporation.
Yes, it must be awfully convenient for the globalist one-worlders of Lib/Lab/CON to have at their disposal a public organisation that can pump-out ‘news’ and propaganda 24/7. Why else did Mrs Thatcher herself not privatise it?
Personally, I think a new nationalist government should give the BBC six months or so to demonstrate it can be truely impartial or else face being privatised.
Good to see John Bean’s notebook again, and lots of regular articles. Any news on the website, it would be good to get all this great content onto a new party site.
Re: The quoted Telegraph report.
Telling the readership that it’s “not racist to discuss the exodus” is a small positive step, in that it encourages the readership to think about race issues without fear, but the proposed explanation about rising prosperity is folly. The reality is far more complex.
A rise in property values is only prosperous for that small minority who own property as an investment. Everyone else must keep a roof over their head, so any rise in it’s value does not put spending money in their pocket. Instead a rise in value just makes it harder to get on the property ladder.
There is a cycle of people starting out by moving to the city for work, then moving to the suburbs to raise a family, then retiring to the seaside, which would exist regardless of the influx of immigrants. Unless there has been a house building boom along Essex’s coastline to exactly counter the influx of new immigrants in East London, then this alone cannot explain the changes.
In reality the influx of immigration has numerous effects with a less a positive spin, including:
– immigrants sharing high occupancy housing, and sub-letting rooms and garden sheds to illegals,
– immigrants giving birth to large numbers of children to get a larger home subsidised by the tax payer on the basis of deliberately created “need”,
– young British adults increasingly living with their parents because they can’t afford to move out,
– older Brits downsizing homes to extract value, without thinking they are making life harder for their offspring,
– younger “responsible” Brits delaying parenthood until they can afford to buy a home, resulting in declining birth rates,
– Brits from less fortunate backgrounds becoming drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless etc. and heading to an early grave, making way for more immigrants.
I saw a real life version of the image above parking up not a million miles from New Street station on Thursday.
When we know what the situation is in USA,mediawise;is it really so different in GB?
It’s the Indian.come on,you should know better than that..