Immigration

Labour has at last acknowledged the damage the BNP’s rise has caused them. Interviewed by Andrew Neil, Peter Hain admitted that government failure on housing and migration had heightened the BNP’s appeal, and, in an interview in this morning’s Independent, Alan Johnson elaborates on his claim that successive governments have been “maladroit” in handling immigration. “Part of its (the BNP’s) attraction is that it is raising things that other political parties don’t raise. It would take the absence of a national debate as the green light to distort the debate. It has absolutely no inhibition about lying about these issues.” Griffin’s and Brons’ victory proved that starving the BNP of

This week’s interviewee on the BBC’s Straight Talk with Andrew Neil is Peter Hain. One of the topics for discussion is Labour’s disengagement with its core vote and the rise of the BNP. Hain admits that this can be ascribed to Labour’s failings and Westminster’s disengagement with voters. Certainly, Labour’s failure on housing and migration has been a major factor in Griffin’s rise. But there is nothing to suggest that Labour has the political strength to re-engage. Even after the recent furore, there have been no new initiatives on housing or migration, just pitiful contrition in the place of action. Hain’s outright refusal to share a platform with the BNP

It’s an odd one is today’s ICM poll in the News of the World.  Most of it makes for sobering reading for the political class: it finds that two-thirds of voters think the mainstream parties have no “credible policies” on immigration, and that one-third agree with a core BNP policy on removing state benefits from ethnic minorities.  The Tories will be disappointed to see that only 20 percent of respondents think that their plan to cap immigrant numbers will work. But there are also some findings which support Alex’s thesis that we shouldn’t be unduly troubled by the levels of support for the BNP.  For instance – and despite all

The mainstream parties’ collective silence on immigration has, undoubtedly, contributed to the BNP’s growing popularity. Nicholas Soames and Frank Field have penned such an argument in today’s Telegraph. David Cameron’s modernisation of the Conservative Party came at the expense of even mentioning immigration. Yesterday’s mind-boggling population projection should curtail the era of uncontrolled immigration: Britain cannot sustain such human and social pressure in the age of austerity. The Tory leadership might view this reality with trepidation. They should not. Limiting immigration would alleviate poverty; it equates exactly with the Tories’ broad one nation philosophy. Labour has ceded its traditional support to the BNP, which indicates that the government’s appalling record

Communities Secretary John Denham has compared the English Defence League (EDL), the group that has organised protests against what it describes as the ‘Islamification of Britain’, to Oswald Mosley’s Union of British Fascists. Whilst announcing that the government plans to re-engage predominantly white working class voters who are being seduced by the BNP, Denham said: “You could go back to the 1930s if you wanted to – Cable Street and all of those types of things. The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far-right and among extremist groups.” Denham is right to express concern that

The Beeb’s admission that they have invited Nick Griffin onto a future episode of Question Time is causing quite a stir.  Two main questions are emerging from it all.  First, should the BBC give a platform to the BNP?  And, second, should other politicians appear on a show with BNP figures?  The Tories have already said they’re “very happy” to put forward a shadow cabinet member to debate Griffin, while Labour are wrestling with their “custom” not to share a platform with the BNP. My take on each question is that, first, the Beeb aren’t wrong to give the BNP a platform.  Personally, I find the party’s views and its