Thursday, March 17, 2011

David Cameron doesn’t ‘want Muslims out of London’; he wants them in Parliament

Karen Buck MP, shadow work and pensions minister, has accused the Conservative Party of pursuing a policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in London. The Telegraph and The Independent report her as saying that Conservatives 'want Muslims out of London', which is more religious cleansing than ethnic cleansing, though the two are, of course, fused.

This has led to demands from the Conservative Party co-chairman Baroness Warsi for Ms Buck to be dismissed.

Certainly, it is a bizarre allegation to make of the Conservative Party under David Cameron, since he bent over backwards to ensure that more black and ethnic minority candidates stood at the last general election than ever before:


Possibly the most visible distinction between Cameron’s conservatism and that embodied by previous Conservative Party leaders is evidenced in the extent to which his party has adapted to contemporary ethno-religious demography: the Party went into the 2010 general election with the prospect of around 15 ethnic-minority candidates likely to win their seats, which roughly reflected the proportion of black and ethnic minority people within the population. Not all did, of course. But there are still quite a few different skin tones now basking on the Government benches, and a very healthy number are Conservative.

The traditional Anglican allegiance of the Conservative Party has been systematically down-played or refuted over recent years in favour of the interests and common agendas of all faith communities, which may be identified as the family, poverty, urban regeneration, racism, asylum and world debt. Potentially divisive issues are either not usually addressed or are skirted around (such as practices arising from strongly-held religious convictions which may appear morally unacceptable to the wider community, the law, or even internationally acknowledged human rights). Such a multi-faith approach is consistent with David Cameron’s ecumenical Anglicanism, and perhaps stems from his appreciation that Christianity does not exert the same dominance in the public sphere as it did when the Conservative Party last formed a government.

Yet calling for a Labour MP to be dismissed for playing ‘the race card’ is bit rich when the Prime Minister himself is not averse to calling UKIP 'closet racists’.

And the inference of Baroness Warsi’s comment that derogatory talk about Muslims has ‘passed the dinner-table test’ is that we are all 'Islamophobic' and subliminally want Muslims kept out of Midsomer Murders.

It is cheap and easy for politicians to hurl insults and call their opponents (and even their allies) unpleasant names. Good grief, it wasn’t so long ago that Patrick Mercer was ‘racist’, and His Grace has lost track of the number of ‘bigots’ or ‘homophobes’ there are. But such is the rough and tumble of what now passes for political debate in this country: if you dare to mention immigration, you're racist. If your raise sexual morality, you're homophobic. And don't, for God's sake, mention the Act of Settlement.

Karen Buck is just wrong about the Conservative Party and wrong about David Cameron. Further, she appears to have omitted to notice that the policy of capping housing benefit at £20k per annum (an eminently sensible move in times of fiscal restraint) is a coalition initiative. If the Conservatives ‘want Muslims out of London’, so must the Liberal Democrats.

While no sensible and discerning person could possibly believe that the Liberal Democrats are either liberal or democratic, it is absurd to assert that they are a party which would support a programme of 'ethnic cleansing'. But asking Ed Miliband to sack Karen Buck is as fruitless and futile as Nigel Farage asking the Conservatives to sack David Cameron. The Conservatives do not ‘want Muslims out of London’; UKIP are not closet racists. Touché.

27 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

'Possibly the most visible distinction between Cameron’s conservatism and that embodied by previous Conservative Party leaders is evidenced in the extent to which his party has adapted to contemporary ethno-religious demography...'

Demography: yes.

Their socially conservative attitudes: no.

There is a large and growing (amongst the Asian communities) Judaeo-Christian constituency.

17 March 2011 at 11:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny how politicians can go 'rabid' on the 'social cleansing' of immigrants in the capital, but can completely ignore the ethnic/cultural cleansing of the indigenous through rampant immigration.

17 March 2011 at 11:30  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I do not say that that the Lib Dems are for "ethnic cleansing", but you might easily think it from a survey of ethnic minorities on their MPs and candidates list in winnable seats - a vulnerability that many of them will regretfully and openly acknowledge is a scandal.

It is not a case that the Lib Dems are lacking in principle, just lacking in any practical application of the same. Whether anybody from that quarter wants to go as far as describing this as "hypocritical" I leave to them. It is, after all, a favourite accusation of the Liberal/Left in such circumstances.

17 March 2011 at 11:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There has been ethnic cleansing in London. But it is the natives that have disappeared particularly in places like Tower Hamlets.

Decades of Lib/Lib/Con pro-immigration policies have succeeded where Hitler’s Blitz failed.

And it’s not just London either. Look around you. There are very few ‘hideously white’ people left in many towns and cities up and down the country.

Looks like Enoch Powell’s prophesy has happened a lot faster than even he imagined.

17 March 2011 at 12:08  
Anonymous MrJ said...

In another estimable piece of informative comment, Blogmaster Cranmer said: "While no sensible and discerning person could possibly believe that the Liberal Democrats are either liberal or democratic, it is absurd to assert that they are a party which would support a programme of 'ethnic cleansing'. But asking Ed Miliband to sack Karen Buck is as fruitless and futile as Nigel Farage asking the Conservatives to sack David Cameron. The Conservatives do not ‘want Muslims out of London’; UKIP are not closet racists. Touché."

If, as the title to the relevant acts is to be believed, the question is about "representation of the people" in parliaments assembled by writ issued by authority of the monarch (conventionally after having the benefit of her then Prime Minister's advice), who, may one ask, are now to be thought of as "the people" who are to be represented?

The population of the United Kingdom as a whole? of its several parts: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? of the paticular constituency?

And is that representation of the persons who would be under Her Majesty's protection as being entitled to a British passport (as we knew it, irrespective of EU requirements affecting other persons who may happen to be within the realm)? Is it the population as looked upon by ministers responsible for advising the Queen, with or without the views of advisers mindful of information derived from any kind of marketing analysis or focus group activity or any other sort of public relations or promotional or managerial variety?

About all this, whose guess is a good as another's?

17 March 2011 at 12:47  
Anonymous Gordo said...

Anonymous, that is not true, there are quite a few white people in London. Mainly gay of course.

17 March 2011 at 13:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"..his party has adapted to contemporary ethno-religious demography."

Has Political Correctness / Newspeak seeped into His Grace's writings ??
I am old enough to recall the days when the above was termed, simply , "chasing the immigrant vote".

Marcus Foxall

17 March 2011 at 13:13  
Blogger Fantana said...

Another excellent post Your Grace. I am so glad that you are able to spend more time blogging. I suspect their loss = our gain?

17 March 2011 at 13:27  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Ms Buck's comments couldn't be because there are Elections coming up on 5th May 2011 by any chance (God Forbid)?

Why not just declare loudly 'Allahu Akbar' from the opposition benches if you are going, ever so cynically and by what means necessary, after a particular ethnic vote?

Cynical old Ernst?

17 March 2011 at 13:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

I ♥ Blogger.

17 March 2011 at 14:21  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

I really ♥ Blogger.

17 March 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger JohnofEnfield said...

Ms Buck. If a racially neutral imperative to cut costs leads to such a racially biased result of so called "ethnic cleansing" (to quote Boris) one has to ask what implicitly racially biased policies put these minorities in this situation in the first place?

Given also that "most house purchases in Westminster are by foreigners" anyway, where are the interests of the natives being served in all of this farrago?

17 March 2011 at 14:36  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Thanks for the pic's on the main post.

That Priti Patel, now she's a stunner! She could goose Ernsty's gander anytime.

Helloooooo.

Ernsty

17 March 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Work and pensions thats a grand title, giza job, I can do that, go ahead then giza job.

Can I have a job in Parlaiment, go ahead, giza job. I have been here longer, these foreigners don't undersand the British system of waiting your turn in the queue.

Others were here before you. I can do that, go ahead.

Giza job.

17 March 2011 at 16:01  
Anonymous Bona Jobseekerettes plus said...

Bred in the Bona @ 16.01

Hello I'm Julian and this is my friend Sandy.. Sandy says Hi.

We are from the Bona Self Promotion Agency and Sandy just wants to make a wincy, little observation, sweets.

"Stop putting yourself down Ducky." You're coming across all desperate like.

Is politics really for you, sweetie?

All those parliamentary layabouts, hobnobbing with foreigners.

Sandy and I are always willing to help those who are confused about their prospects. Drop us a line ducks, see if we can assist in meeting your ambitions, however far fetched..

Then you can say like Peter Tatchell, 'Bona fixed it for me.'

Bye Babes

Jules and Sand

17 March 2011 at 16:55  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Oh good move Goldmember, no politics is not my thing dear.

I just help pay the debts for them, so they can play their games.

I don't expect to really be trusted with your pensions.

17 March 2011 at 17:34  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think Karen Bucks framing of reducing housing benefit (in one of the worst modern financial Uk situations) as a link to hitting ethnic minorities , is not perhaps a good position for Labour , for does it not confere that housing benefit in london maninly goes to one section of society , in this case for expensive housing , is this an admission that some councils had not been as wise as they should have been and that labour had no discipline and the wrong polices to ensuring major parts of councils spending was not looked after better in ensuring they were able to do other functions properly.

As some have pointed out it is a little rich crying cuts when some councils have been throwing excessive money to expensive rented properties .Who knows it may be that certain landlords did better than others in lists.

however this first shot in the elections for London may well be a chip off the block of Ken (who as given platorms to extremists), but Ken may not know how others in the Labour party in other parts of the country , now view Labours immigration polices in the light of a struggling economy , and untruths being fed about the pressures that were occuring to services.

17 March 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL6S2rOS0D0

Free the west!

17 March 2011 at 17:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Karen Buck has at last brought to public attention just how much it costs to keep a Muslim presence in our capital city. While Arab sheikhs and businessmen can pay their own way and buy homes in Central London; the flotsam and jetsam who arrive on our shores without even contraception can live in Central London only because lots of natives commute in to work and live outside London so their taxes can make London a multicultural nirvana.

This gesture has been unsurpassed since the Indian tribes who welcomed the Settlers in Connecticut gradually removed themselves to reservations to offer up yet more land to the incomers.

17 March 2011 at 18:12  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Speaking as a half Jew, half Anglican, married to a Hindu, I resent most strongly any assertions that this country's people as a whole were more racist, sexist or homophobic, in the resent past, then they are today.

Indeed I contend that they are MORE racist, sexist, and homophobic today then they were back in the 60's,70's, and early 80's; they just don't say so, or makes jokes about these subjects anymore, for fairly obvious reasons.

Sure when I was at school, I used to get the odd 'hook nose,''short arms, long pockets,' type of taunts, but never did I take them seriously, or rise to the bait. As a general rule, back in the sixties, most English people would not have known what a Jew or Muslim was, even if one of them were standing on their foot. Black guys were generally popular, good footballers, and had plenty of girlfriends, especially white ones.

I do not recall any notable amounts of racism, sexism or homophobia from any time before the late 80's to 90's, when quite suddenly issues such as racism, sexism and homophobia seemed to suddenly dominate political discourse at all levels.

I do not recall any minority groups protesting that their then sitting MP's were not representing their interests at constituency level.

I do not recall any homophobia ANYWHERE; indeed even back in the sixties homosexuality seemed to be quite acceptable to the vast majority who considered the existence of such a thing in the community NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Young people especially, at the time simply thought that these issues, if they really existed at all, where things of the distant pass that would naturally vanish over time.

I thought it would be worthwhile pointing this out, as many seemed to have forgotten.

IMO: our ruling class have deliberately institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia into the very fibers of our society. This to help the proverbial THEM to divide and therefore more easily rule over us.

Not at all a new trick, indeed these types of characters have been up to this kind of thing all over the planet, for many thousands of years; but most especially for the last 200 of them.

17 March 2011 at 18:17  
Anonymous MrJ said...

What was not then a problem, as Atlas... says, has become one:

"... our ruling class have deliberately institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia into the very fibers of our society. This to help the proverbial THEM to divide and therefore more easily rule over us." Yes, and where is that ruling class? In what institutions has it been nurtured? Would a suspicion that it began (in modern form)circa 1884/95 be groundlless?

17 March 2011 at 19:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Atlas shrugged @ 19:10 :

Having just read your comments/theories re' the current Japanese tragedy, and now this, I have to presume that you are completely 'barking'!

17 March 2011 at 19:49  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

AS: "I do not recall any homophobia ANYWHERE; indeed even back in the sixties homosexuality seemed to be quite acceptable to the vast majority who considered the existence of such a thing in the community NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS."

The fact that homosexual acts were criminalised between men even in private before 1967 and only decriminalised after in private between men over 21 might suggest otherwise. It took until 1994 to bring the homosexual age of consent down to 18 and it finally became equal to heterosexuals in 2000. And it's not as though it was a law on the books but never used.

The push for recognition of equal rights for gay people started in the very early 1970s. There were a number of cases of people being sacked for being gay. Peter Tatchell was subject to a nasty campaign by the tabloids when he stood for the Labour Party in Bermondsey in the early 80s. TV used to have camp celebs but they were very 'safe' icons. Even Boy George had to claim he preferred a cup of tea to sex to make things 'okay' for the media.

Schools were hideous places for gay teenagers in the 1970s and 80s. Medical professionals still practiced aversion therapy to 'cure' being gay i.e. electric shock treatment. The police weren't interested in anti-gay violence and may even have turned their hand to it themselves on occasion. One couldn't be gay in the military either of course.

Considered acceptable by most? Hardly.

17 March 2011 at 20:04  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Oswin 19:49_
"Atlas shrugged @ 19:10" ???
Is that a typo?

17 March 2011 at 20:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

MrJ : My apologies, yes a typo; should read : 18:17

17 March 2011 at 20:51  
Anonymous MrJ said...

btw_MrJ has not forgotten John Wolfenden's Report or the Peter Wildeblood et.al. case, and much else of the 1960's.

17 March 2011 at 21:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Karen Buck.
One of the many people in a group who are reasonably dressed and friendly enough,but belittle and ridicule others.

18 March 2011 at 20:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older