Thought for the day - Gordon Brown

How the hell can a 'man' who brought Great Britain to her knees through years of overspending, who sold off most of our gold at rock bottom price and gave the banks free reign to screw everyone over become the next managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?

Britains new Prime Minister - David Cameron, Conservative

Ex-PM Gordon Brown steps down

Harriett Harman, Alan Johnson, David Milliband,
Ed Balls, Jack Straw, Ed Milliband

So, Gordon Brown is stepping down as Prime Minister, but who is in line to replace him?

God help us!

Brown grovels when caught out

Gordon Brown grovels on air when confronted with his actions today.

Gordon Brown calls pensioner a 'bigot'

Today sees another nail in Labour's coffin.

A woman who asked Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, about tax on pensions, national debt and immigration was called a bigot by him.

Mr Brown was caught on a SKY microphone saying the interview with Mrs Duffy ‘was a disaster’.

‘you should never have put me with that woman, whose idea was that?  It’s ridiculous, she’s just a bigoted woman’ he said.

Gillian Duffy, a life-long Labour supporter, has said she will no longer be voting for Mr Brown. Mrs Duffy would like to know why she was called a bigot saying she deserves an apology but not in person. ‘I don’t want to speak to him again really, I’ve seen enough of him for one day’.

Welcome to our world, Mrs Duffy...

Conversation in full:

Gillian Duffy: The thing that I can't understand is why am I still being taxed at 66 years old because my husband's died and I had some of his pension tagged on to mine?
Gordon Brown: Well we are raising the threshold at which people start paying tax as pensioners. But yes, if you've got an occupational pension you may have to pay some tax but you may be eligible for the pension credit as well, you should check.
Gillian Duffy: No, no I'm not. I've checked and checked and they said no, they can't do it.
Gordon Brown: Well you should look at it again just to be sure, absolutely sure.
Gillian Duffy: Yes, yes they've told me. I've been down to Rochdale council to try and get it off my tax.

Gordon Brown: You know we're linking the pension to earnings in two years' time, we've got the winter allowance as you know which I hope is a benefit, the winter allowance.

Gillian Duffy: I agree with that, it's very good, but every year I talk to people my age and they say they'll be knocking it off, it will be going. It will be.
Gordon Brown: We're keeping it. We have done the bus passes, we have done the free eye tests, free prescriptions.
Gillian Duffy: But how are you going to get us out of all this debt Gordon?
Gordon Brown: Because we have got a deficit reduction plan to cut the debt in half over the next four years. We've got the plans, they've been set out today. Look I was a person who came in...

Gillian Duffy: The three main things what I had drummed in when I was a child was education, health service and looking after people who are vulnerable. But there's too many people now who aren't vulnerable but they can claim, and people who are vulnerable can't claim, can't get it.

Gordon Brown: But they shouldn't be doing that, there is no life on the dole for people any more. If you are unemployed you've got to go back to work. It's six months...

Gillian Duffy: You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're... but all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?

Gordon Brown: A million people have come from Europe but a million British people have gone into Europe. You do know that there's a lot of British people staying in Europe as well. Look, come back to what were your initial principles: helping people - that's what we're in the business of doing. A decent health service, that's really important, and education. Now these are the things that we have tried to do. We're going to maintain the schools so that we can make sure that people have that chance to get on. We're going to maintain the health service so that...
Gillian Duffy: And what are you going to do about students who are coming in then, all this that you have to pay, you've scrapped that Gordon.
Gordon Brown: Which one?
Gillian Duffy: To help people who go to university.
Gordon Brown: Tuition fees?
Gillian Duffy: Yes.
Gordon Brown: Yeah but look we've got...
Gillian Duffy: I'm thinking about my grandchildren here. What will they have to pay to get into university?
Gordon Brown: You've got 40% of young people now going to university, more than ever, so you've got to have some balance. If you get a degree and you earn twice as much after you get the degree then you've got to pay something back as a contribution. But there are grants for your grandchildren, there are grants, more grants than ever before. You know more young people are going to university than ever before, and for the first year the majority of people going to university are women - so there's big opportunities for women. So education, health and helping people, that's what I'm about. That's what I'm about.
Gillian Duffy: Well congratulations, and I hope you can keep it up.
Gordon Brown: It's been very good to meet you, and you're wearing the right colour today. How many grandchildren so you have?
Gillian Duffy: Two. They've just come back from Australia where they've been stuck for nine, 10 days with this ash crisis.
Gordon Brown: But they got through now? Yeah we've been trying to get people back quickly. But are they going to go to university? That's the plan?
Gillian Duffy: I hope so. They're only 12 and 10.
Gordon Brown: Oh they're only 12 and 10. But they're doing well at school?
Gillian Duffy: Yeah yeah, very good.
Gordon Brown: A good family. Good to see you.
Gillian Duffy: Yeah. And the education system in Rochdale - I will congratulate it.

Gordon Brown: Good. And it's very nice to see you. Take care. Good to see you all. Thanks very much.
Gordon Brown gets in car.

Gordon Brown: That was a disaster...should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
Aide: I don't know, I didn't see her.
Gordon Brown: Sue's I think. Just ridiculous.
Aide: Not sure that they'll go with that one.
Gordon Brown: They will go with that one.
Aide: What did she say?
Mr Brown: Everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour.

The impact of mass immigration on our resources

The impact of uncontrolled mass immigration on the fabric of British life was driven home to the party leaders yesterday.

A letter to Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg reveals in graphic detail the struggle of one community to cope.

It says public services - from schooling to housing, healthcare to police protection - are overstretched because councils have not been given the support they need.

The letter, from two independent councillors in the Cambridgeshire city of Peterborough, spells out in a straightforward and measured way how a community which 'lived in peace and harmony' has been transformed.

Local schools are struggling to educate children who speak 27 different languages and health services are under unprecedented pressure.

The councillors, Charles Swift and Keith Sharp, contrast the situation with that of a few years ago.

Then, they say, 

'there was parental choice in education with school places. There was no homelessness. There were no problems with registering at the local doctors for health services. Everyone knew the local police officer and they were available at all times. People could walk the streets in safety and talk to their neighbours.'

The two men asked the party leaders for a reply, warning that the problem is a national one.

But in another example of the way immigration issues have been brushed under the carpet, they have heard nothing.

The letter has been sent to Mr Brown and Mr Clegg three times since January 18, without any reply.

David Cameron responded immediately with an email from his correspondence secretary promising a reply from Damian Green, Tory spokesman on immigration. Mr Swift and Mr Sharp are still waiting.

The two councillors represent North ward in Peterborough where 15 per cent of people are migrants, mainly from the former Communist Eastern Europe.

Their letter - which they also sent to constituents - was passed to the Daily Mail by a local resident concerned that its urgent message was being ignored.

The councillors say:

'At our local primary school, Fulbridge, which has a roll of 675 pupils, 27 different languages are spoken with only 200 of the pupils having English as a first language. The first-year reception class has 90 pupils, of which only 17 are white British.

Every day new arrivals are turned away. Registration at the local doctors' surgery has rocketed with more than 90 per cent of the new arrivals being from the EU.

There has been a substantial increase in women who are pregnant.

'The Health Service and Primary Care Trust in the city has overspent by millions of pounds in the past year.'

A key issue is the Government's failure to support councils. But Mr Swift and Mr Sharp make clear that the local authority cannot track all new arrivals - crucial information in assessing how much money they need.

They say there were only four EU citizens on the local electoral roll in 2004. Now there are 537 and 'we know there are substantially more here'

The councillors also voiced the local fears that immigration is fuelling a rise in crime.
They write:

'We had four police houses in the ward years ago. Everyone knew and respected the local constable. Now we have muggings, robberies, burglaries and neighbour disputes. We have prostitutes, drug dealers and an ever-increasing number of people who drive without road tax or insurance.' 

Some 16,000 migrants - many looking for farming work - have moved to the Peterborough area since 2004.  

Immigrant communities account for 64 per cent of the population growth.

Details of the letter emerged a day after the Daily Mail revealed shocking figures showing that nearly every job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.

Some 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts went to immigrants.

In their letter, Mr Swift and Mr Sharp say the arrival of so many migrants has left Peterborough's housing system in chaos, with immigrants sleeping rough and relying on the Salvation Army for food.

They say many properties have been bought by speculators and turned into multi-occupancy dwellings let to immigrants.

'The consequence is that our housing waiting lists have rocketed and our homeless hostels are full.' 

This reinforces reports of migrants living in makeshift huts along the local river and slaughtering swans to eat.

The councillors' concerns were echoed last night in a Harris poll for the Daily Mail, which reveals that seven out of ten voters are 'very worried' about the scale of immigration and believe it is a 'significant cause of unrest'.

Some 63 per cent think the influx of two million immigrants under Labour has been a 'bad thing' and three out of four want a tough limit on new arrivals.

Mr Swift, 79, a former train driver and trade unionist who was awarded the OBE for his council services, said last night:

'The political leaders must listen to ordinary people. There must be a control on migrant numbers coming in. It is what people want. They feel the situation has got out of hand. I have spoken to rocksolid Labour supporters, rocksolid Conservative supporters. They don't know how to vote.'

Sir Andrew Green, head of the Migrationwatch campaign group, called the letter 'a vivid and convincing account of the impact of immigration'.

He added: 'It is shameful that these councillors should have received no substantive reply'.

Last night a Tory spokesman said a reply from Mr Green was due to be sent before MPs' offices close on Monday.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said: 'We are not currently aware of this correspondence but of course Gordon will answer any questions that are asked of him.'

Nick Clegg's spokesman said: 'We are very sorry these councillors have not received a reply. They will be getting one as soon as possible.'

MailOnline

VC hero refuses to shake Gordon Brown's hand because of 'disrespect' for Armed Forces

Gordon brown has sent a grovelling letter of apology to Victory Cross hero L/Cpl Johnson Beharry

Hero Beharry, refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand in protest at the PM's 'disrespect' for the Armed Forces during a Remembrance Day service last year.

In a show of contempt for the way Gordon Brown fidgetted and moved during the two minute silence, the lance corporal said he turned round and walked off as the Premier offered his hand.

L/Cpl Beharry said:

'I decided I'd get his attention and let him know how I felt. When he offered his hand to me I just turned round and walked away. I wanted him to think about his actions and it worked.

All that was going through my head was to knock him out.'

Well done L/Cpl Beharry, you speak for the majority of us.

How Labour is now trying to brainwash us all

The following is an article by Leo McKinstry of the Express and I have to stress that this is what we have been saying for a long, long time...

In its desperation to cling on to power, Labour’s abuse of office has become outrageous.

Gordon Brown’s Government increasingly resembles one of those discredited and corrupt regimes of the former Eastern bloc: aggressively partisan, contemptuous of democracy and blind to any distinction between the interests of the party and those of the nation.

A key hallmark of totalitarian Communist rule was its obsession with trying to indoctrinate 

the public through political propaganda. Until recently, the idea that such an approach might be adopted in Britain would have seemed laughable. 

But all that has changed under Labour. The years of Blair and Brown have been dominated by spin. The machine of the state is now devoted to the imposition of socialist ideology. 

The airwaves and billboards are filled with Left-wing propaganda dressed up as public information or as “awareness-raising” programmes. Two incidents over the weekend brought home to me the extent of the naked political bias in the public sector. 

First I was in a newsagents when I noticed a large pile of glossy brochures near the cash tills. The publication was entitled Britain In 2010 and the cover was full of such classic Brownite slogans as: “the road to economic recovery”; “lower carbon growth for a greener planet”; and “making tough choices”. I genuinely thought for a moment that this was an advance version of Labour’s election manifesto. 

ONLY on closer inspection did I find that it was actually a booklet from a quango called the Economic and Social Research Council, which has an annual budget of £181million paid for, of course, by the taxpayer. It is all too typical of the modern quangocracy that it should be so eager to adopt the language and outlook of the Labour Government. 

The second incident was even worse. Looking through some political blogs on the internet I came across a disgraceful video clip posted by a primary school in Hackney. 

This featured a group of young children who had been instructed by their teacher to chant a rap song eulogising the local Labour MP, the highly controversial Left-winger Diane Abbott. In this nauseating performance the pupils sang of Diane Abbott’s wonderful achievements, including her campaigns for equality and women’s rights. Once they had finished they held up large pictures of Abbott’s beaming socialist visage. It was just like something out of the People’s Communist republic of North Korea. 

It is a depressing sign of how far the state education sector has succumbed to Labour’s dogma that a teacher could actually think this flagrant Left-wing indoctrination is acceptable in our schools. 

The same teacher, so brimming with righteous zeal, so anxious to supplicate his socialist masters, would no doubt be appalled at the idea of a group of private school pupils chanting praises to a local Tory MP. 

These two cases are just part of the pattern of civic life in Labour’s Britain. Never before in our history have we had a Government so fixated with brainwashing and lecturing the public. The state is now by far Britain’s largest advertiser. 

Last year, Brown’s ministers spent no less than £540million of our money on commercials, an increase of 43 per cent on 2008 and as the election approaches the problem is getting worse. 

In addition, the number of spin doctors in government has quadrupled since Labour came to power. There are now about 4,000 officials in Whitehall – costing more than £220million – whose job is to communicate the Government’s message. 

So much of this vast publicity drive is nothing more than Labour propaganda. Only last week the independent watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority announced a ban on the Home Office’s £5million campaign for something called the “Policing Pledge”, which is designed to give the illusion that the Government is doing something about crime. 

As the ASA pointed out, the Home Office’s claim in its adverts that the police spend 80 per cent of their time on the beat is blatantly misleading when the real figure is less than 14 per cent. 

Similarly, the ASA ordered a ban on a series of Government commercials about global warming based on children’s nursery rhymes, whose only purpose was to soften up the public for more green taxes and state intervention. 

BUT such setbacks will not halt Labour. Deceit and spin are woven into the fabric of the Government’s operations. The impartiality of the civil service has been obliterated. Whitehall publicity is now indistinguishable from Labour output, as can be seen in the current official campaign Building Britain’s Future. 

Though this has been presented as an impartial public strategy, in truth it is pure electioneering for Labour. “Thanks to our active intervention the economy is recovering and families have received much needed help,” it trumpets. 

The state has been turned into a subsidised arm of the Labour movement. The public propagandists see their primary duty not as serving the British people but as challenging “the forces of conservatism”, to use the notorious phrase of Tony Blair’s. 

If Labour wins again it will be partly due to the success of their indoctrination  programme.

 

Hidden Tax Petition

For those of you that drive...

When VAT was temporarily reduced to 15%, the Chancellor added 2% duty to fuel to offset the reduction in tax collected from motorists. Now that VAT has been increased to 17.5% again this hidden tax has not been removed - hence recent rises in your fuel costs. Sign the petition at the link below to have this stealth tax removed!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/DutyReduction/

You only have until 12th march to sign, so make sure you give this link to as many people as possible.

Choudary's islam marches against our boys

When British soldiers are killed they need to be repatriated. They are flown to RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and from there are driven through a small town called Wootton Bassett.

Hundreds of people line the streets whatever the weather, to pay their respects to our fallen heroes and give their families the support they so desperately need.

Our government, not our boys and girls, decides where our soldiers go to fight and this is why I am sickened by the news I came across today.

Anjem Choudary, leader of islam4uk, the platform for the banned extremist group al-Muhajiroun, has announced plans of a march through Wooton Bassett.

A spokesman for Wiltshire police said it ‘respected the right to peaceful protest but would deal with any breach of the law appropriately’.

To organise a march in Wootten Bassett is, in my eyes, incitement to racial hatred and should not be allowed to take place. It will be seen by many as a march against our dead and the people who turn out in support of them.

While this is going on, gormless gordon broon is to hold a summit to stop Yemen being a breeding ground for terrorists.

What about holding a summit to stop them breeding here in the UK, gordon?

Cash-strapped Labour ‘gives up’ on 60 vulnerable seats

Labour’s cash-strapped party machine is quietly abandoning up to 60 vulnerable seats to divert resources to defend constituencies in its heartlands, according to MPs.

It is the first sign that some senior Labour figures accept that defeat is inevitable and are switching resources to defend seats with larger majorities to prevent a rout next year.

Plans for targeted mailshots in marginal seats have been scaled back dramatically because of a lack of resources. Some MPs say Labour’s HQ is refusing to help seats with majorities of less than 3,000 — about 60 — as it retrenches in the face of the Tory advance.

A member of the National Executive Committee denied that it had set a bar but acknowledged that the party was being forced to make “difficult decisions” about which seats to defend.

The retreat has left MPs furiously demanding extra cash. Even loyal allies of Gordon Brown, such as Ian Austin, who has a notional majority of more than 4,000 in Dudley North, are having to argue for money to defend themselves, The Times has learnt.

Although it has fended off bankruptcy Labour’s national party remains in a precarious financial position.

In the past year the party has “raised” £18 million compared with the Conservatives’ £25 million. However, £2 million was a loan converted to a donation and £15 million is in borrowing and credit facilities.

Party strategists acknowledge that unless the Tory poll lead — currently at 14 percentage points — can be narrowed to single figures before Christmas, there is little prospect of the party filling an election war chest.

Many Labour MPs complain they have been outspent for years as a result of the Tory target-seats operation overseen by Lord Ashcroft. Labour, unable to match his resources, nevertheless has copied the Conservatives in demanding that candidates provide evidence of active campaigning in return for support.

But with a flood of MPs expected to quit as a result of the expenses controversy, many have simply given up, according to senior Labour figures. “Requests for information on what campaigning is being done from regional offices are just going in the bin,” said one.

New data from the credit reference agency Experian, which is used by political parties to identify different groups of voters, suggests there are large numbers of disaffected former Labour voters in key seats.

Four groups have been identified as most likely to desert the party at the next election:

• Thirtysomething homemakers who voted Labour in 1997 but are burdened with debt as they start a family — they may turn to the Conservatives;

• low-skilled, largely unemployed households who will either not vote or turn to far-right parties;

• those in former manufacturing communities who no longer have strong union and Labour Party ties — they are also vulnerable to extremist lobbying;

• people approaching retirement in some of the nicer council estates who exercised the right to buy — they may also turn to the Conservatives.

Such groups are found in many seats with majorities between 5,000 and 10,000, which Labour would need to retain to win the general election.

All three main political parties employ the Mosaic marketing system, which uses commercial and other data to target different types of voter. The system divides Britain into 155 types of individual, 67 different households and 15 groups.

Research by the company behind the system suggests that Mr Cameron is making deepest inroads into Labour’s vote in the young homemakers group, which accounts for just under 6 per cent of the population. They are reported to be “extremely financially distressed”.

The top 20 seats with the most disaffected Labour voters:

Walsall

North Knowsley*

Plymouth Moor View*

Birmingham Northfield

Telford

Bristol East

Crawley

Thurrock

Stevenage

Dudley North

Cannock Chase

Erewash

Amber Valley

Southampton Itchen

Copeland

Sherwood

Dudley South

Harlow

Workington

Ipswich

*Constituency faces abolition or boundary changes at next election

Times Online

Fun and frivolity with Gordon Brown

It's the weekend again so here's a little something to lighten the mood and give you a laugh.

Video by Tetrasoft

Home Office covered up immigration risk

Labour's “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, according to documents seen by The Sunday Times.

The Whitehall correspondence, which was illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years, shows how ministers were told by the country’s most senior immigration official that his staff were to be “encouraged to take risks” when granting visas, work permits and extended residency to hundreds of thousands of new migrants.

The cover-up of this policy of risk-taking was so concerted that Richard Thomas, the then information commissioner, sent a team of investigators into the Home Office to trawl all the relevant papers. Earlier this year he rebuked the department for breaking the law and ordered it to release the material under the freedom of information (FoI) law.

The documents help to explain the huge rise in the flow of migrants into Britain as the Home Office rushed to clear a backlog of 45,000 cases.

Officials agreed to fast-track 337,000 applications with minimal checks. This led to a rapid rise in immigration. In 1999, 170,000 visas were granted; by 2002, this had risen to 300,000.

As officials were being ordered to take risks, several potentially dangerous people entered the UK. In late 2001, more than 20 Taliban, who had fled from Afghanistan after their defeat by American and British forces, were allowed to stay in the UK.

The documents cast new light on the row over past immigration policy, highlighted by the recent rise of the British National party.

Last week Alan Johnson became the first Labour home secretary to admit the government had made mistakes in its handling of immigration. He said ministers had ignored problems about failed asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners. They had also failed to grasp public unease about the growing pressure on jobs and public services.

Johnson’s remarks signalled the government’s belated recognition that its immigration policy has alienated its white working-class vote, tempting a significant minority to back the BNP. The documents indicate that, far from being a mistake, there was a deliberate policy — apparently endorsed at the highest level in the Home Office — to promote concerted risk-taking by immigration staff whose job was to decide whether non-European Union migrants applying to work, study or marry in Britain were genuine.

A key figure in the scandal was Sir Bill Jeffrey, who was the director-general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Britain’s most senior immigration official. He is now at the centre of controversy as the senior civil servant in charge of the Ministry of Defence.

The other key figure was Beverley Hughes, then minister of state for citizenship and immigration. She was later forced to resign after it emerged she had misled MPs about whether she had been warned that Romanian and Bulgarian crime gangs might want to exploit the UK’s decision to open its borders to those seeking work from eastern Europe.

In March 2003, shortly after the 2001 entry permits to the Taliban had come to light — to an outcry in the press — Jeffrey spelled out the policy in a note to Hughes.

“We are still in a situation where some risks have to be taken, and staff should feel that if they are encouraged to take risks they will be supported when something does go wrong,” he wrote.

The minister’s office replied by e-mail three days later:

“Beverley Hughes has seen and noted your submission of 7 March . . . Beverley feels the basic point is that while staff have to take some risks, this was a decision that flew in the face of common sense.”

The e-mail was copied to David Blunkett, then home secretary, and Sir John Gieve, his most senior mandarin. The words “to be withheld” were later scribbled across the top, an apparent instruction not to comply with an FoI request for its release.

The same words appear on a note, prepared by Jeffrey, sent to Hughes a few day later. In it, in response to Hughes’s insistent complaints about the need to clear the 45,000 backlog, he outlined the new “risk-taking” policy. This involved fast-tracking all 337,000 applications, with little or no regard as to whether they were merited.

The policy, codenamed Brace, meant that officials had to make quick decisions based on the paperwork in an applicant’s file, regardless of whether it was complete. No further follow-up checks were to be made.

Jeffrey said staff were given guidance that “Brace is about pragmatic (ie not pursing every angle that could conceivably justify refusal) grants rather than pragmatic refusals”.

In other words, the official policy was in principle to grant applications rather than to refuse them.

This telling exchange — and equally significant evidence of a concerted cover-up — is buried deep in a batch of documents that ministers tried desperately to prevent being made public.

Their illegal activity followed an application by a Whitehall whistleblower, Steve Moxon, to force them to release the material under the Freedom of Information Act.

An immigration case worker whose ultimate bosses had been Jeffrey and Hughes, Moxon was sacked after telling The Sunday Times about the fast-tracking process in 2004. He has spent five years trying to obtain the truth about the policy, which Hughes always claimed publicly was implemented by junior officials without her knowledge.

Not only do the papers expose her claim as untrue; they go further in showing that Hughes and Jeffrey were happy to encourage the culture of deliberate risk-taking.

When an FoI application was made to see their exchanges, ministers argued that the material was exempt from disclosure because policy advice given by officials to their political masters should remain confidential.

In official correspondence with the information commissioner, the Home Office said that “a Home Office minister” had ruled that the documents should not be released.

But in March this year, Thomas ruled: “The public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

“The commissioner requires the (Home Office) to disclose the information which has been withheld . . . In failing to release information, the commissioner finds that the (Home Office) breached sections 1 and 10 (of the Freedom of Information Act.”

The government reluctantly conceded, placing the documents on an obscure part of the department’s website, apparently in the hope that nobody would notice.

Yesterday, the Tories said they would be demanding an urgent explanation of the documents from the government.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “This is shaping up to become one of the major political scandals of recent times. Ministers quite clearly broke the law and deliberately misled the public to cover up a policy which most reasonable people would say was utterly irresponsible.”

Whiff of a smoking gun

Why did new Labour secretly open Britain’s borders, while pretending to control the numbers under its so-called “managed migration” policy?

Two weeks ago Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter for Tony Blair, wrote an article saying Labour had allowed immigration to rocket in order to turn Britain “truly multicultural” and “to rub the right’s noses in diversity”.

The heart of his claim was that uncontrolled mass immigration had been a deliberate, covert policy to change the country’s demographics.

But Labour’s core vote, the white working class, were drawn to the BNP at the resulting pressure on jobs, homes and schools.

Alan Johnson, the home secretary, has said Labour was “maladroit” on the issue: the immigration door was left wide open because of “cock-up” not a “conspiracy”. But Neather’s account may be only half the story.

Chris Mullin, a former minister, recalled in his memoirs that ministers had “barely touched the rackets that surrounded arranged marriages . . . terrified of the huge cry of ‘racism’ that would go up

. . . There is the added difficulty that at least 20 Labour seats, including Jack (Straw’s), depend on Asian votes”.

With up to 80% of ethnic minorities voting Labour, it is obvious that the more immigrants who get the right to vote, the greater is Labour’s electoral share. Perhaps Mullin has stumbled on a smoking gun.

TimesOnline

Labour minister turns on BBC's Andrew Marr over Brown's 'prescription pills' questions

Labour MPs are said to be plotting to boycott his flagship TV programme in protest at the questions about the PM's health, it emerged today.

Marr was yesterday involved in a row with housing minister Ian Austin, who confronted the BBC presenter in the main conference hotel about his Brown interview.

Some ministers are also said to be reconsidering whether to accept invitations to go on the Andrew Marr Show, which airs on Sunday mornings.

The BBC interviewer has faced strong criticism at the Labour Party conference after he asked Gordon Brown at the weekend if he took 'prescription painkillers or pills' to help him carry out his job.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls last night questioned Marr's 'integrity', telling a fringe meeting that broadcasters should not propagate false allegations put around by 'malicious bloggers'.

He added: 'It's really important that those people in positions of responsibility, not tweeting to people but broadcasting to millions, understand the nature of their power and responsibility.'

Jon Cruddas, a senior backbencher and touted as a possible leadership candidate, said Marr's conduct had been 'absolutely disgraceful' and refused to appear on his BBC show.

Marr has defended his approach, but admitted that he 'got it in the neck' at a Coalfields Communities Federation reception yesterday.

Lord Kinnock and Lord Mandelson claimed he had simply repeated rumours spread by the 'extreme Right-wing blogosphere'.

From their response we can take it that it's true then.

.

CRACKING UNDER THE STRAIN - GORDON BROWN

Prime Minister Gordon Brown

WORSENING OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER

SEVERE DEPRESSION CONTROLLED BY DANGEROUS DRUGS

FAILING SIGHT IN 'GOOD' EYE

A Political Wing special

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled." Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby "He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference". And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed "He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It's a mess, and nobody knows what to do".

Rumours have circulated about Gordon Brown's health for a number of years. As long ago as 2004, Simon Heffer wrote in the Spectator that he displayed many signs of Asperger's syndrome: humourlessness, lack of irony and obsessional behaviour patterns. Nby itself ran a long piece in February 2007, predicting fairly accurately how Brown's rigid responses to given situations would prove to be inappropriate, and his behaviour in the end dysfunctional. We noted at the time 'If the Labour Party can organise seventy-three signatories to a document of intent named 'Anyone but Gordon', then there must be something about the man which might make him unfit to be Prime Minister'. In fact, we had already been advised by then that the PM had been on large doses of SSRI anti-depressants - the class of drugs derived from Prozac.

The overall story is well known in lobbyist circles. A senior member of this group told us that "Brown is in a very dark place. Sarah [hiswife, Mrs Brown] has begged him on several occasions to seek help, but he resists most offers of advice." Yet another popular journalist said "I'm afraid all the stories about him throwing things around and screaming at secretaries are entirely true. He behaves impeccably in public and can really turn on the charm when he needs to in private - but inside the bunker he behaves appallingly. He's also binging on junk food late at night - you can see he's gaining weight"

However, our investigation suggests that there is a more important reason for the PM's weight gain: he is now on a different class of drugs, for which ballooning weight is one of the least dangerous side-effects.

These drugs are called Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs). Before the arrival of Prozac derivatives, they were the first line of attack when dealing with severely depressed patients. But a senior physician told us last month "A GP would have to be insane to prescribe MAOIs these days - SSRIs are safer, with far fewer side-effects. Apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to get hold of them".

This is indeed correct. In 2003, SKB withdrew their MAOI brand-leader Parnate because of the dangers it represented, and also because SSRIs had none of the disadvantages. However, at the time several regional mental health units reported that for some patients, SSRIs were nowhere near as effective.

Thus there is evidence that, having tried and seen no help from the newer generation of drugs, Gordon Brown has now been put onto MAOIs. If this is true, then he is indeed in a desperate state - as we shall explain.

This evidence was handed to us inadvertantly. The senior source referred to at the start of this piece mentioned "the latest nonsense - a huge list of things he can't eat or drink because of the drugs he's on...most importantly, cheese and Chianti". Every doctor in Britain would recognise these contraindications instantly: for they are the two great verbotens for people taking MAOI drugs.

As long ago as 2001, prescribing psychiatrists described MAOIs as 'the last resort now we have better drugs'. However, for all their downsides (several thousand people around the world have died as a result of ignoring the dietary advice re MAOIs) this older class of drugs has one huge advantage: for severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder it remains very effective.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is relatively common. Most of us display some obsessive features in everyday life, but under stress a minority of people become borderline or actual OCD in their behaviour, and need medication to control both this and the depression which almost always presents soon afterwards. The most obvious symptom is a compulsive need to carry out functions such as hand-washing or counting almost incessantly. (The Asperger's syndrome 'Rain Man' personality displays these too, but the two conditions are easily separable on other bases. Our view is that Brown has OCD, not Asperger's syndrome.)

Gordon Brown's symptoms are obvious when viewed in this light: the constant repetition of phrases, and an almost embarrassing (for his Party) need to spray every Parliamentary answer with statistics. Lifting out of poverty, the Tories are the do-nothing Party, global problems require global solutions - these and myriad others have been repeated over and over ad nauseam. Equally, the six million lifted out of poverty, twelve million helped by mortgage benefits, two million new jobs created: when interrogated, these figures often prove to be illusory, but they - and the constant speech repetition - represent Brown's unconscious means of controlling the severe anxiety that accompanies depression with OCD.

We have no means (as yet) of proving his use of MAOIs, although the 'long list of forbidden foods' is the nearest one will get to a smoking gun - short of a written, signed diagnosis or prescription. We also cannot be certain how long the PM has been taking them, but the remark 'the latest nonsense' suggests that this is a relatively recent development. On average, a heavy dose of MAOI therapy would start to display some results within twenty days to six weeks. Gordon Brown has reportedly returned from 'easily his longest break from Downing Street' feeling 'very much refreshed and up for it'. It is more than likely he took the uncharacteristically long break on medical advice. And it will be interesting to note whether his behaviour changes.

One feature unlikely to change is the increasingly obvious difficulty he has finding his way to and from podiums, and lack of peripheral vision. This (according to a senior, medically-trained source) is the result of failing sight in the one eye he has left. We found so many confirmations of this story from so many sources, it seems to us impossible for it to be pure invention. It appears to be universally recognised in the Cabinet and upper echelons of the Civil Service.

So: here we seem to have a man (unless huges cadres of non-colluding senior people are liars) on a rarely used, dangerous drug to control his mental state - and getting close to a stage of serious disablement in relation to his eyesight. As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership - especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit - why hasn't the story broken more widely? Why hasn't the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown's psyche - and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons....on all sides.

Brown rules by fear and smear. He always has done, and it is the main thing he is known (and hated) for in the Labour Party. A former Cabinet Minister told nby in early 2008 "Nobody ran against Gordon because nobody could face the slur, innuendo and blackmail that would go with it. When he gets going, Brown and his little coterie of spinners are animals". Several similar observations appeared in national newspapers during late 2007. There has also remained the rumour that even Blair himself eventually fell foul of this, and left not of his own volition but as a result of threats from the Brown camp. That must remain as conjecture: but given his alleged track record of not entirely legal actions, Blair would have had a lot to be frightened about.

The PM evokes a certain degree of loyalty from close confidantes, but the main reason why no Brown staffer has broken ranks is that this would mean the end of the meal-ticket: either Brown would fall, or he would deny...and bury the whistle-blower. Luncheon Vouchers are also behind the remaining silence in the Parliamentary Party as a whole. Two senior Lobby correspondents have confirmed to us in the last three weeks that "even the most anti-Brown camp think there's no alternative to Brown". Nearly all Labour backbenchers now expect a rout, but think that if Brown were ousted they would be wiped out. Comically, the exact opposite view pertains in the Tory Shadow Cabinet, where "they're so terrified of Labour dumping Brown, they'd do anything to leave him precisely where he is".

This bears further examination on a number of levels. Three of our sources confirmed the general view that the parlous state of Brown's health is well-known among Conservative bigwigs. That they collude in an allegedly dangerously ill man remaining in charge of Government (purely to ensure their own victory) is selfish cynicism of the worst kind - and a damning charge to which, if and when the truth of this matter comes to light, they will have no defence. It also reinforces the electorate's feeling that senior Cameron Tories are woefully lacking in confidence - or convincing alternatives to what the Government is doing.

As to whether Brown is a liability or an asset for voters, the latest poll (30.8.09) in the Guardian showed that Brown's ratings have actually fallen as 'signs' of economic green shoots have become apparent. In short, when it comes to the Machiavellian 'keep him where he is' strategy, New Labour have called it wrong. As ever, they are probably being too clever for their own good.

Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister's health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service. One of the main sources of this story told us, "It's a farce, and utterly disgraceful. There isn't a mandarin in Whitehall who's unaware of Brown's condition - they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won't lift a finger to bring it to the public's attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country".

One can appreciate how a similar situation developed from 1935 onwards in relation to the King's relationship with Mrs Simpson. But it is hard to understand why the press - especially the right-wing press - haven't had a harder go at nailing this story in 2009. The tabloids are too busy shouting threats into celeb letter-boxes, and the more liberally inclined papers may well share the New Labour view that loyalty is their duty at this stage of the game; but that seems unlikely - and what of Dacre at The Mail, or the Telegraph, still fresh from its huge success in blowing the lid off the expenses scandal?

The answer usually comes back 'there's no physical evidence, and it's an easy story to deny - to dismiss as just another anti-Brown smear campaign'. But perhaps the clues about MAOI usage by the Prime Minister make it much harder to deny....and much easier to get written confirmation. For if it's true, Brown's entourage must be sending out strict dietary requirements ahead of his regularly catered public engagements; one could even monitor what he eats on such occasions.

Not Born Yesterday lacks both the sources and resources to do this job. The sole purpose of this piece is to get matters to a stage where the story is out in the public domain, such that the real people who count in Britain - the voters - can make their own minds up about it. And - who knows? - to create a situation in which the Opposition might at last do its duty, and question the PM's fitness for office on these well-known (if not as yet well-documented) bases.

©2009 Not Born Yesterday and John Ward.

Welcome to Gordon Brown’s Broken Britain

The unelected moron in charge and his sniveling, thieving entourage, has not only brought our country to its knees but ensured that for generations to come it will only get worse. But do you know the worse thing about it? They just can't see it.

The following article was in today’s Mail online.

Drink, promiscuity and a cycle of low aspiration among children mean Britain is becoming the 'bad parent' of the western world, it has been revealed.

A vast study of youngsters' well-being in 30 industrialised nations ranks Britain among the worst for health, lifestyles and school standards relative to public spending levels.

Underage teenagers in Britain are more likely to get drunk than those in any other country, and Britain has among the highest proportions of teenage mothers and single-parent families.

In 'risky' behaviour - drinking, smoking and teenage pregnancy - Britain's performance is worse than all nations other than Turkey and Mexico.

Educational achievement is low given the billions being poured in by Labour, with more than one in ten 15 to 19-year-olds not in school, training or work - the fourth highest rate in the OECD, ahead only of Italy, Turkey and Mexico. Social mobility in Britain is also stalled, the report concludes.

The report, published by the economic think-tank the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, compared data from 30 leading countries around the world on children's welfare.

It found that public spending on children is well above average, at more than £90,000 from birth to the age of 18. Family incomes are relatively healthy, too, ranking eighth out of the 30 countries studied.

But education results remained 'low relative to spending levels,' the report says, while the ability of children to break out of their class structures and earn more than their parents is poor.

'In the United Kingdom... each new generation is more likely to find themselves in the same position in the earnings distribution as their parents,' it says.

Figures show that 33 per cent of 13 and 15-year-olds in Britain had been drunk at least twice, despite being too young to be served alcohol, compared with just 12 per cent of American youngsters and 14 per cent of French.

Unlike in many other countries, drunkenness is more common among girls - with half of 15-year-olds having been drunk at least twice - than boys, with 44 per cent.

Teenage pregnancy is also far higher than average across the OECD. The UK has the fourth highest teenage pregnancy rate after Mexico, Turkey and the United States.

In Britain, 23.4 teenage girls per 1,000 gave birth in 2005.

Britain ranks a poor 20th out of the 30 in terms of children's 'health and safety', with infant mortality rates higher than average and among the lowest numbers of toddlers being vaccinated against measles.

The report criticises the Government for paying out generous benefits for single parents, saying that they keep them out of employment for too long. Once children start school at 4 or 5, benefits should be withdrawn, it says.

'There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being, while they discourage single-parent employment,' the report says.

Only 70 per cent of under-16s in England live with both parents, a figure which falls to 68 per cent in Scotland and 66 in Wales. This is well below the OECD average of 75 per cent.

The report echoes research two years ago from UNICEF that put British children bottom of a list of the 21 most advanced countries.

That report cites family breakdown, drink, drugs, teenage sex and fear of violence as the issues confronting teenagers.

Shadow Schools Minister, Nick Gibb said: 'The low levels of social mobility and high levels of inequality are a serious cause for concern.

'The OECD is right that money needs to be targeted at poorer pupils if we are to close the educational gap between the top and the bottom.

'That is why two years ago, the Conservatives proposed a plan for education reform with an explicit pupil premium attached to children from less well-off backgrounds.

'Labour has failed a generation of children which is why we need a Conservative Government that takes the necessary steps to remove this block on opportunity.'

Joyce Moseley, chief executive of youth charity Catch22, said: 'The UK has consistently scored poorly in OECD reports on the levels of young people not in work, education or training; teenage pregnancy and youth substance abuse.

'Unless we can start to improve this situation the UK risks becoming the bad parent of Europe.

'The OECD makes it clear that although the UK spends more than most on young people, the money is poorly targeted for older children.

'It is important that the good work done in the early years is backed up with consistency and targeted support for the most vulnerable young people.

'Now is the time for those of all political stripes to make a commitment to improving the situation of young people in the UK.'

Dawn Primarolo, the Children's Minister, said: ‘It is disappointing to see the UK rated so low for risky behaviours.'

But she added: 'We have introduced a number of initiatives to help teenagers and their families make informed decisions about their behaviour, including the plans to introduce statutory Personal, Sexual and Health Education lessons to equip young people with the knowledge, understanding and practical skills to live healthy, safe, fulfilled and responsible lives.'