Hain Claims Vindication.
Ex-Minister Peter Hain leaving the scene of yet another little misunderstanding in 1969.
HAIN CLAIMS VINDICATION – BUT HE NEEDS TO LOOK HARDER AT THE NUMBERS
Peter Hain today believes he was right all along to try and stop the BNP’s appearance on Question Time. He has seized (as you’d expect) on the 22% of Yougov respondents who said they’d ’seriously’ consider voting BNP following the appearance of BNP leader Nick Griffin on the show. But in his triumphalist declaration, Peter Hain displays three facets of his personality with chilling clarity.
First, his assumption that ordinary voters are far too dim and malleable to withstand the sinister appeal of the Griffin Tendency. Second, his unwillingness as ever to accept any Establishment responsibility in terms of mistaken policy. Finally, like all the political class in 2009, there is an almost wilful inability to understand what the YouGov research is saying.
But first of all we should examine the BBC audience feedback. Of the calls the corporation got after the show, fully 60% thought the ambushing and bullying of Griffin was unacceptable. So then, congratulations Establishment: you managed to generate public support for an extremist.
Further, the same feedback indicated that those against the BNP being allowed on the show were outnumbered three to one. So well done again, Mr Hain: finger on the public pulse as ever.
As for the ‘22% more’ BNP ’support’, the Telegraph’s study doesn’t say this at all. It says 4% think they’d ‘definitely’ vote BNP, and 3% more would ‘probably’ do so. As memories of the Question Time edition fade, the 3% will drop dramatically. As for the 15% who said they would ‘possibly’ vote for Griffin’s Party, any pollster will tell you such a mild intention can be virtually discounted.
Now let’s look at where the sympathy for BNP ideas comes from. The biggest single group (just over 50%) said the BNP points out that ’successive governments have done far too little to protect” indigenous British rights. In short, Establishment failure again; even amongst these, however, 55% said they had ‘no sympathy with’ or ‘disagreed totally with’ the overall stance of the Party. The vast majority of those polled said they would never vote BNP, whatever the circumstances.
Finally, the Yougov research showed that support for the BNP has risen overall by just 1%. Not only this, but it has risen by 1% over the last month. During that time, BBC pr’s, opportunistic media – and an equally oppportunistic Peter Hain among many other MPs – gave the event media time out of all proportion to the programme’s importance. They and they alone were responsible for a unique level of interest being whipped up: and to live by the sword is also to die by it.
Peter Hain is the archetypal left-leaning politician in search of support for his theories – up to but not including the empirical data available that rubbishes them. He would have been better employed keeping quiet during October…and who knows, perhaps even appearing on the show to defeat Griffin’s entirely deluded view of life personally – by the use of rational argument rather rabid insults.
John Ward 2009
-
1
October 25, 2009 at 9:41 am -
Dear R.
Having read the following in the Maail on Sunday I do believe the question “WHO are the Racists Now?” must be asked.
‘Dishonest’ Blair and Straw accused over secret plan for multicultural UK
By Simon Walters, Mail on Sunday Political Editor
Last updated at 2:26 AM on 25th October 2009Jack Straw and Tony Blair ‘dishonestly’ concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed.
The allegation was made after a former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.
Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, who pioneered the open-door policy, wanted to restore her Labour reputation after being attacked by Left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as ‘vile’.
Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration report, was a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and is now a senior aide to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell.
Labour chiefs decided to brand Tory leaders William Hague and Michael Howard as racists to deter them from criticising the covert initiative.
Mr Neather said there was a ‘driving political purpose’ behind Labour’s decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of migrants to plug gaps in the labour market.
He said the stance was foreshadowed by a report by Mr Blair’s Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) think-tank, which said the nation would benefit from more migrants.
Mr Neather claimed that earlier, unpublished versions of the report made clear that one aim was to make Britain more multi-cultural for political reasons.
‘I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,’ he said
The report, entitled Research, Development And Statistics Occasional Paper No67 – Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis, was published in January 2001 by the Home Office, then run by Mr Straw.
Most of its key statistics came from a PIU team led by Mr Portes. The report paints a rosy picture of mass immigration, stating: ‘There is little evidence that native workers are harmed by migration. The broader fiscal impact is likely to be positive because a greater proportion of migrants are of working age and migrants have higher average wages than natives.’
It goes on: ‘Most British regard immigration as having a positive effect on British culture.’
Mr Portes remains an enthusiastic advocate of the benefits of immigration. He wrote a report for the Department of Work and Pensions last year rejecting claims that Eastern European workers had stolen the jobs of British counterparts, arguing Britons lacked the skills and motivation.
A former Government adviser told The Mail on Sunday: ‘If the Government had been prepared to have an open debate about immigration, we would not have had the problems we have seen with the BNP. But it did not want immigration policy discussed.
‘It is not a very honest Government. They knew immigration was a hot issue and they did not want to get into a fight on it.’
The source said Labour deliberately targeted William Hague and Michael Howard when they called for tougher immigration controls.
Mr Hague was accused of ‘playing the race card’ in 2001 when he said Mr Blair was turning Britain into a ‘foreign land’. Michael Howard was called a ‘racist’ in 2004 after he went to BNP stronghold Burnley, in Lancashire, to denounce Labour’s stance on asylum seekers.
A Labour insider suggested Mrs Roche relaxed immigration controls partly in response to the outcry she faced after criticising begging Romanian mothers.
‘She was called a scumbag,’ said the source. ‘She wanted to show she was a genuine liberal.’ -
2
October 25, 2009 at 9:56 am -
Anna; another clever analysis, but I’d like to point out that Hain doesn’t do “rational arguments”, only “It is so because I say it is” rhetoric.
-
3
October 25, 2009 at 10:24 am -
Those were the days… Bobbies and limp demonstrators.
-
4
October 25, 2009 at 12:11 pm -
Roughly 50% of the electorate don’t bother to vote. The established political parties are worried that the recent upsurge of possible BNP voters, are coming from this group. The disillusioned given a reason to vote can be a very powerful block indeed.
-
5
October 25, 2009 at 12:30 pm -
£103,000 reasons why Hain does not like the BNP…
-
6
October 25, 2009 at 12:56 pm -
“He would have been better employed keeping quiet during October…”
Sadly, Hain will NEVER be better employed – he should be taken out, ala the above picture, and shot.
-
7
October 25, 2009 at 1:15 pm -
I think this Hain chap sounds like a thoroughly nasty piece of work and I wouldn’t mind betting he digs up cricket pitches too. This is another fine piece from Anna writing under one of her many pseudonyms.
I don’t, however, think we should shoot Peter Principle. After all, police would have to carry him away, and he has developed the odd love-handle since the piccie was taken. No, I think Mr Pain should go and live in Joburg, but without 24/7 callout alarms on his house.
Yesterday Man x -
8
October 25, 2009 at 1:25 pm -
9
October 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm -
“The biggest single group (just over 50%) said the BNP points out that ’successive governments have done far too little to protect” indigenous British rights.”
Well, at least they’ve dropped the “white”, thank feck, but is anyone going to define what “indigenous” means? Born here? One generation? Two? More? As far as I can see, one is either a British citizen, or one isn’t – faffing about with artificial definitions of “Britishness” is both idiotic and futile. PH may be yet another NuLab control freak, but even he’s not that stupid.
-
10
October 25, 2009 at 1:45 pm -
Vimes, I concur.
What is worrying is the critics of the BNP using the term “indigenous” synonymously with the term “racial purity”. They are not and do not mean the same thing.
Indigenous refers to those descended from the ancient residents of these isles. Anthropologically, how far back does one go? Bonnie Greer’s contention that we are all descended from Austrolopethicus is looking decidedly shaky as more and more fossil discoveries are made. Personally, I don’t give a toss where people were born or where they lived before coming to the UK…but if you want to live here, they abide by our laws andvalues and embrace our culture (such as it is), and do not attempt to foist their own culture on the indigenuous poplation ny the use of specious yooman rights laws or getting loony lefties to pander to your minority “rights”. If they don’t like the way we do things here, the airport is that way —>
-
11
October 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm -
Morning, Henry:
Abiding by our laws – of course;
Embracing our culture and values – possibly, but hard to define, as I would argue that each of us has our own moral code, regardless of nationality.
I have no problem with ethnic groups retaining and celebrating their own cultures – after all, there are Caledonian Societies, pipe bands and Welsh choirs all over the world. That’s not “foisting”, imho – if you’re talking about religion, however, then I’ll pass on that one, as I find them all equally ridiculous, to be honest. -
12
October 25, 2009 at 2:53 pm -
The English just want to have to stop apologising for who they are, and what they believe in! Proud people who are frankly sick of becoming invisible!!
-
13
October 25, 2009 at 2:54 pm -
I agree with you Vimes.
I’m having a problem with rights the ‘british’ have apparently lost because of migrants, what are they ?
Daily Mail – Why would Blair and Straw want to change Britains cultural make up in the first place, let a lone just to piss off the right wingers ?
If your pissed off that Britains traditions and culture have changed is that because the ‘british’ no longer want to go on a day trip to the sea side by charabanc, or because dancing round the may pole is too pagan, or because putting a roast on, on sunday is too much like hard work . . . . . who exactly has forced us to stop doing ‘british’ things ? We have stopped doing these things of our own free will. What are these ‘traditions’, they are diferent for everyone, surely. -
14
October 25, 2009 at 5:23 pm -
I think the photograph at the head of this article is nothing to do with vindication, and everything to with eight pints of Old Scrotum and a large helping of Vindaloo at the Pimlico Curry House. Hain was always a bit of a troughing piss artist, and this shot is the smoking bum we’ve all been waiting for.
On a marginally more serious note, I think Vimes makes a lot of good points – but while I accept ‘our culture and values’ is too all-embracing, I think there have been two profound mistakes in New Labour immigrant policy, whether in power or in opposition.
One, tolerating those who wish to replace our legal system with theirs is not exactly clever. And two, as always the New Labels handing down their wisdom from the cosmopolitan restaurants of Highgate and Islington fail to recognise a basic fact of pack life: too many incomers results in anxiety and resentment.
I lived happily for seven years in Brixton, in a street where we were 30% indigenous, 30% West Indian, 10% African and 30% Indopak. There is no threat in variety, if everyone signs up to the same code of behaviour.
Yesterday Man
PS I must say that Mr Hain does have very big feet. -
15
October 25, 2009 at 6:21 pm -
I think the BNP will score points on the back of QT in the long term. What they need to do now is to get rid of Griffin, put a new face in at the top and rebrand themselves, a la Labour.
“Old Labour? No, not us. We’re NEW Labour”. That rebrand got them power, and crushed us to the point that it took a lunatic like Griffin to point it out to the public. No-one else has the guts to do that. Not Hain, Straw or the other mongs in NuLabour, not the tories, not LibDems. The Greens don’t count.
Rebtrands work every time, and the BNP would up their vote if they did this rebrand, whilst acknowledging that some of their former policies were out-dated.
All thanks to the likes of Hain, whom I bet is as sick as a Skegness donkey.
-
16
October 25, 2009 at 7:08 pm -
Note to younger readers: the photograph was taken during the 1972 London Transport strike when the Metropolitan Police kept London moving with the first walking bus service. I pity the horses of the Mounted Section that pulled carts on the Underground.
-
17
October 25, 2009 at 7:22 pm -
It was always regrettable that the Oily One didn’t fall out the top floor in the old BOSS building in South Africa.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }