This is Sunny’s classic: “here is a link that has very little to do with anything I’ve said but whose mere mention completely refutes [insert argument here]“.

I thought your reasoning was sound.

Hence my description of how the BNP is trying simultaneously to mine ‘anti-establishment’ and ‘old-fashioned Labour party’ support. So perhaps you should either read what I said more closely, or understand the material you link to better?

Incidentally – John Rentoul is indeed a Blairite. I don’t know if you remember this, but Blair was leader of the Labour Party? Just as Phil Collins was a member of the party and one of Blair’s speech-writers. Your dismissal of them as right wing implies an ever-shrinking Labour tent. More a pup-tent than a marquee perhaps.

“The BBC said that it was delighted with the outcome of Question Time last night, insisting that the decision to change the format of the show to focus almost entirely upon Nick Griffin had humiliated the British National Party leader.

But the reaction from viewers suggested that the gamble had not been a complete success, with many of the audience writing on internet messageboards that they felt the programme was one-sided and allowed Mr Griffin to claim that he had been victimised.

Four out of the five questions the panel were asked directly related to the BNP, with the fifth focusing on Jan Moir, the Daily Mail columnist, who attracted more than 20,000 complaints for a piece about Stephen Gately, the deceased Boyzone singer.”

I don’t think it is just right-wingers who are interested in what the BBC were up to here. I have been studying how the audience was selected, the crib-sheet they were given and what they were told by programme makers before the show. Of course I am unlikely to see the briefing papers that the Chairman and most panel members were given containing ways to attack Nick Griffin. That’s a shame. My conclusion is that the show format was altered to be partisan and biased. You may argue that was justified but can we all accept at least that this was the case.

incidentally Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech was not addressing the issue of overpopulation

I wasn’t referring to that specifically, but people and him were saying 40 years ago Britain was full up and its culture was being destroyed and the black man would subjugate white people etc etc. My point was that this rhetoric is not new.

Tim J: This is also John Rentoul’s analysis

Rentoul, the man who still pines for Tony Blair, yes? Perhaps you should listen to people who mine the polling data rather than overpaid newspaper columnists:

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/25/where-are-the-bnp-votes-coming-from/

OK, Britain does have high population density and the Dutch, who are in an even narrower boat, are going spare about it. My own bugbear is bloody Prescott, with his insistence that south-east towns zone great swathes of new housing, irrespective of how much overdevelopment their councils have encouraged in previous years. Do it up north, Prezza. There’s space, regenerate the infrastructure and get some (gasp) manufacturing industry going, rather than creating a pool of unemployables down south in the hope that they’ll one day find some job in ‘services’.

There has to be a ‘good fit’ population size, which would be a shifting target based on current age pyramids, skill balances, sectorial shortfalls, inflation prospects. Surely it’s not beyond our technocrats to calculate it … though that would be the Home Office, wouldn’t it (gulp).

I doubt they’d tell us what that target was, anyway, be it a Labour or a Toty administration.

Sigh. Was the sarcasm really that subtle?

Now there is a bigger argument about identity, the meaning of state borders, etc but the net effect is a population that currently tips 60 million, with projections of another 10 million by 2030 – 45% of the increase will be associated with a difference in migration and immigration according to some reports.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/uk-population-data-ons

I feel apprehensive about how schools, hospitals, roads, housing, etc, will cope with these numbers – but maybe others, like Neil, feel 70 million is still not enough, and the UK would be an even better place to live if only we could attract more people to come here?

Only time will tell, I guess?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/10/ali-miraj-who-in-parliament-speaks-for-the-white-working-classthe-question-time-debacle-will-boost-t.html

He agrees with Griffin that Question Time was a ‘lynch mob’, asserts that the BNP speak for the white working class, and repeats their spin about ‘uncontrolled immigration’.

Infrastructure beginning to creak in many densely populated areas Birmingham, Manchester, etc, etc. High density of population means cost of buying land for new infrastrcture v expensive. This is main reasoin why buying land for CTRL through S England was far more expensive than buying land for high speed rail link in N France, where land is cheap. The buying of land for high speed rail link from London to Manchester and Scotland will be major part of total cost. More people means the need for more power generation which will probably require the construction of nuclear power stations. Wind power is unlikely to be able to keep the lights on and there is insufficient R and D on wave power.

Increase in value of land in Ireland over last 15 years greatly increased the cost of building new motorways which were required.

They’ll have to guess, because they sure as hell won’t get a straight answer if they do bother asking.

We must counter the BNP’s racist, hysterical fearmongering by stemming the tidal wave of foreigners that threatens to swamp the country, choke our cities and overwhelm our public services. Also, let’s be nicer to Nick Griffin than those awful lefties were.

I hold out the honest possibility that this counts as “practical politics for dealing with a genuine crisis,” although it looks far more like “shitty politics for turning Nazi bullshit into electoral gold”. Readers can decide for themselves what proportion of each is involved, I suppose.

Such underhanded tactics are little more than a lazy attempt to taint this issue with racist undertones – spend a bit of time with teachers, nurses, social workers, housing officers, etc – they will all tell you that services could be improved if demand could somehow be lessened – surely not all of them are ‘Powellites’?

I am the first to admit that I have no pat answer to this thorny issue – but as far as I can tell neither does anybody else?

All it can do is survey people’s correct or incorrect knowledge of the situation.

Its NOT just about numbers, it’s about quality of life as well.
Obviously two adults with two children, say, could probably manage in a 2-bedroom council flat, assuming they were not one of the millions still on a local authority waiting list, but this would hardly be conducive to the kind of living space that teenagers benefit from (or a grotty counterpart in the private sector).

Climate change was hardly on the agenda 40 years ago – overpopulation will increasingly come to dominate politics, in my view, especially if have an unforeseen food or energy crises.

Regardless of the endless and pointless wrangles about the BNP being right-wing or left-wing, it is incontestable that they are trying to sell themselves as both an anti-establishment party and, explicitly, as ‘the Labour Party your father voted for’. The Labour Party, as an unpopular Government, is not able to capitalise on the anti-establishment mood, and it’s also vulnerable to the attack that ‘the party’s given up on people like me’. This is also John Rentoul’s analysis:

The BNP is Labour’s creature; its supporters are working-class voters who feel that they have been let down by a Labour government. BNP success is a measure of Labour’s failure; of the collapse of the New Labour coalition of the white working class and the liberal middle class.

In 1997, the BNP won 0.1% of the national vote – what’s that going to be next year? In opposition, Labour will quickly rediscover their anti-establishment voice – the one that they maintained through the 80s and 90s into Government. When they don’t have to make the difficult decisions that Government entails, they will be more able to utter the comforting platitudes that make people feel they are being listened to.

Isn’t about time you updated your moniker to reflect your current station in life?

Say something like ‘CallCentreTory’ or ‘AmbulanceChasingTory’ or maybe ‘HamsHallBusinessParkTory’..

1. be more patriotic,
2. toughen up immigration policies,
3. give the British people a real choice on Europe,
4. clean up the political expenses system and
5. deliver transformational help for poorer communities in Britain who are being left behind

If these are ‘BNP policies’ I presume you support relaxing immigration policies (despite your assertion upthread that immigration hurts the poor), giving us no choice on Europe, not cleaning up expenses and not giving help to poorer communities.

I guess that your knee-jerk opposition saves on thinking, but it’s not coherent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5470066/yes-lets-talk-about-immigration.thtml

It’s about the only sensibly thing I’ve read on immigration by right-wingers.

The rest of it is apologia for the BNP (oh boohoo, support for them is increasing so we should do what the BNP advocate).

but that their objections aren’t valid
you have some serious reading comprehension problem. I said the Tories crying tears for working class people, claiming that stopping immigration will somehow help people, is a joke.

No. Clearly you can’t comprehend. The BNP’s policy platform has more in common with the agenda pushed by those on the left of Labour Party (like you Sunny). See http://praguetory.blogspot.com/2007/01/incredible-candidate-for-labour-leader.html

“The point isn’t the numbers but how we manage them and deal with them.”

If you manage and deal with them poorly (see council house waiting list), the point IS the numbers.

“The poor people of this country, some of them hurt by immigration, would be hurt by international trade and globalisation anyway even if immigration was stopped.”

Of course I would argue that trade and globalisation helps the poorest in the West. Of course, if we had more of open trade (i.e. Scrap the CAP) there would be a transfer of wealth from relatively rich EU-based farmers to relatively poor food consumers and poor non-EU farmers. Something you oppose?

By the way, I note that you seem to be arguing that the poor are hurt by immigration (tut tut – legitimising the BNP?), but that their objections aren’t valid. Way to win people over.

“So the tears for the working class are just crocodile tears by Tories.”

The point of the article – start with conclusion, work backwards to evidence. File under ‘All Tories are evil’.

For example, see your idol Tim Montgomerie:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/09/it-is-important-we-confront-the-bnp-but-also-that-we-take-away-their-issues.html

As for the country being “full up” – Enoch Powell too said that 40 years ago.

The point isn’t the numbers but how we manage them and deal with them. The poor people of this country, some of them hurt by immigration, would be hurt by international trade and globalisation anyway even if immigration was stopped. So the tears for the working class are just crocodile tears by Tories.