On 15 April, Britain had her first TV live election debate. This was billed as a must not miss - TV audience were expected to be in their millions. David Cameron was expected to come out on top - after all he had worked on TV before turning to politics.
The first question was on IMMIGRATION - a word the British always invoke when they perceive their economy/country to be in crisis - the 'other' have to be blamed for the mess that their country is in - in this case, RECESSION. I was puzzled as to why the TELEVISION station - ITV chose immigration as the first question of the evening. Like the rest of the UK media, ITV seemed to be joining the bandwagon in favouring Mr David Cameron (I hope that they - ITV will forgive me if my assumption is wrong). Immigration has been Cameron's poker hand since he was elected the leader of the Conservative Party. It could also be his nemesis. I was expecting the economy to be the first question though - considering how the media had attacked The Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown prior to the debate on his handling of the economy and the recession that befell us. Although this crisis was GLOBAL, living in the UK, one would think that Britain was still an empire. It took Cameron almost a year to acknowledge that the recession was global. Nonetheless, all the political parties, I assume were prepared and knew that immigration was one of a number of topics on most white voters minds. Britain, I am told remains at least 90% white - but you wont believe this living in the country.
Cameron was the first to answer the question on immigration put to him by a member of the studio audience (most sat there like gnomes), I was and still is appalled by Cameron's racial politics. He had, since he was elected the Conservative leader, to be quietly planting in the public's mind his fear of the 'other'. He did not disappoint in his answer. He started by reminding us that he met a "black man" who came here when he was "six" and that even this man was against the influx of people into a 'FULL' Britain.
What exactly does Cameron mean? For anyone who had watched the TV documentary "posh at the top" a few years ago, this documentary depicted David Cameron as extremely right wing and this position had blighted (shortly anyway) his political ambitions. To address this set back, he quietly began to reposition his political views until he got himself elected as the leader of the Conservative Party-coining the nonsense we know today as "compassionate conservatism". Once more, a thorough analysis of Mr Cameron's comment on Thursday 15 April 2010 revealed his real politics - one of fear and hate. Mr Cameron seemed to be saying that although he does not like non whites into the country, he is tolerant of those who are already hear and settled BUT have now come to accept his view that Britain is full! But Mr Cameron is against the brain drain that many third world countries have witnessed - so he is willing to allow those who possess qualifications that are so desperately needed by the Britain.
This black man if he ever existed, reminded me of an article in New York Times (see earlier blog on the Tea Party) about blacks and Hispanics seen in the Tea Party. Many black people in the UK are indifferent to people who arrive into the country in search of better life. The UK owes most countries. This is a country built on the backs of the great great grandparents of those they are trying to keep away today. And the brain drain will not help to stem these people from trying to come over to the UK.
The mass immigration witnessed over the past 13 years are as a result of EU expansion, the war in Bosnia and the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars which the Tory party supported!!! Mr Cameron will do best to remind the public of the number people who emigrate. Mr Brown of the Labour Party and Mr Clegg of the Liberal Party were quite right to avoid Mr Cameron's political mischief.
Every time I think that it is time that I returned to voting the Conservative party, Mr Cameron continually reminds me that his party is not quite the Party of Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke (intelligent, honest and blunt)that I once admired. At least with Mrs T, we knew what we were dealing with. With David Cameron, it like playing on a quick sand.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
From New York Times - THE TEA PARTY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 17, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
A Mighty Pale Tea
By CHARLES M. BLOW
GRAND PRAIRIE, Tex.
On Thursday, I came here outside Dallas for a Tea Party rally.
At first I thought, “Wow! This is much more diverse than the rallies I’ve seen on television.”
Then I realized that I was looking at stadium workers. I should have figured as much when I approached the gate. The greeter had asked, “Are you working tonight?”
I sat in the front row. But when the emcee asked, “Do we have any infiltrators?” and I almost raised my hand, I realized that sitting there might not be such a good idea.
I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.
The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”
They saved the best for last, however: Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel. According to his Web site, Zo, who is black and performs skits as “Zo-bama,” allowed drugs to cost him “his graduation.” Before ripping into the president for unconstitutional behavior, he cautioned, “I don’t have the education that our president has, so if I misinterpret some things in the founding documents I kind of have an excuse.” That was the understatement of the evening.
I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do?
It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but. A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white.
And even when compared to other whites, their views are extreme and marginal. For instance, white Tea Party supporters are twice as likely as white independents and eight times as likely as white Democrats to believe that Barack Obama was born in another country.
Furthermore, they were more than eight times as likely as white independents and six times as likely as white Democrats to think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.
Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.
I invite you to visit my blog, By the Numbers. Please also join me on Facebook, and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
April 17, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
A Mighty Pale Tea
By CHARLES M. BLOW
GRAND PRAIRIE, Tex.
On Thursday, I came here outside Dallas for a Tea Party rally.
At first I thought, “Wow! This is much more diverse than the rallies I’ve seen on television.”
Then I realized that I was looking at stadium workers. I should have figured as much when I approached the gate. The greeter had asked, “Are you working tonight?”
I sat in the front row. But when the emcee asked, “Do we have any infiltrators?” and I almost raised my hand, I realized that sitting there might not be such a good idea.
I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.
The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”
They saved the best for last, however: Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel. According to his Web site, Zo, who is black and performs skits as “Zo-bama,” allowed drugs to cost him “his graduation.” Before ripping into the president for unconstitutional behavior, he cautioned, “I don’t have the education that our president has, so if I misinterpret some things in the founding documents I kind of have an excuse.” That was the understatement of the evening.
I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do?
It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but. A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white.
And even when compared to other whites, their views are extreme and marginal. For instance, white Tea Party supporters are twice as likely as white independents and eight times as likely as white Democrats to believe that Barack Obama was born in another country.
Furthermore, they were more than eight times as likely as white independents and six times as likely as white Democrats to think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.
Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.
I invite you to visit my blog, By the Numbers. Please also join me on Facebook, and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@nytimes.com.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)