Tuesday, 6 January 2015

It’s a bit rich for Diane Abbott to complain about “expropriating” money from Londoners to spend on the Scots

Pork Barrel enthusiast
Labour desperately needs supporters who’ve decamped to the SNP to return to the reservation in time for the general election in May, or the party and its “leader” are going to go very nicely with butter and marmalade. Jim Murphy, the recently elected leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and his bosses in London have obviously spent a lot of time thinking hard about how to lure disaffected jocks back into the fold – and they’ve come up with a brilliant wheeze: promise to give them lots of other people’s money! The bribe has been couched in terms of stealing money from rich southerners via the mansion tax and handing it to Scottish voters in the form of lots of extra NHS nurses. But that doesn’t matter – it’s the principle that counts.

The special needs London Labour MP, Diane Abbott – who presumably got her job thanks to some left-wing affirmative action programme or other – has taken exception to Mr. Murphy resorting to bribery. She has complained that this amounts to a promise to “extort” money from Londoners in order to “buy” Scottish votes.  Of course – possibly for the first time in her life – her criticism is spot on. But hold on a minute, Tubs… taking money from the people to whom it belongs and handing it to people to whom it definitely doesn’t in return for their vote is surely the Labour Party’s entire raison d'être. In fact, it now appears to be the raison d'être of all main political parties – the difference being that Labour takes even more of our money away and hands it to even less deserving people than the others do, and then, because bribery and power are addictive, borrows vast extra sums (which future generations will have to repay) in order to keep themselves in office.

One presumes that Ms Abbott’s central objection to Jim Murphy’s enthusiasm for redistributing other people’s money is that it won’t be available to bribe the pet victim groups whose votes will help the chubster MP retain her capacious Hackney North and Stoke Newington seat in May. That’s the problem with relying on the politics of envy, resentment and victimhood – occasionally the needs of one bunch of anointed “victims” will outweigh those of a rival group: after all, life is as much about competition as co-operation, no matter what utopian egalitarians tell us.

But of course, there’s another reason for Diane Abbott’s intervention. Let’s face it, the rainbow coalition of ethnic voters in her constituency aren’t going to be switching sides any time soon, whether or not she keeps delivering pork from the taxpayer barrel. I presume what motivated today’s internecine intervention was the need to demonstrate to Londoners - especially the dwindling number who aren’t of an ethnic persuasion – that she has the whole of the city’s interests at heart ahead of her attempt to become Mayor: I have a feeling her ethnic supporters may find themselves on the back burner for a bit as their glorious leader desperately “reaches out” to members of the indigenous population. Good luck with that, Diane!

The most amusing sentence uttered during today’s little spat between political southpaws was this one from Jim Murphy: "The way in which the UK works, as we all know, is about pooling and sharing our resources." Far as I can see, Jim, it’s us lot down here who are called on to fill the pool, while your lot get to drain it.  Or will that earn me a visit from Police Scotland?


  1. Since Ms Abbott and her "community" are in UK without the consent (via a referendum on race - replacement level Third World immigration) of the British people, any indigenous Brit has the moral right to ask her to return to Jamaica.

    Especially as Ms Abbott's plans for what Scott has cleverly termed 'international gerrymandering" ( http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/423863/Outcry-as-Labour-s-Diane-Abbott-demands-MORE-migrants-should-come-to-UK ) would be yet another milestone on UK's Via Dolorosa.

  2. Of course, I'm aware that Ms Abbott's place of birth is UK but as the Irish - born Duke of Wellington said, "to be born in a stable does not make a man a horse."

    1. I don't want to come over all liberal and po-faced, but I don't think Diane Abbott's fellow-Britons have a "moral" or any other kind of right to ask her to leave the country she was born in and of which she is a citizen (or subject) in order to return to a country she wasn't born in, no matter how annoying her opinions are (and I do find them incredibly annoying). Yes, indigenous Brits have been badly served by the governments they elected. But, after all, they elected those governments, and they usually had the choice of an anti-immigration party to vote for - albeit those were revolting. I don't think immigration is a subject which lends itself to a referendum, because you can't simply not have any immigration, and the question would have to be a straight "yes" or "no". It works for EU membership and Scottish Independence - but not for immigration.

      There have been endless mistakes over immigration by Labour and Tory governments since the 1950s - but, as far as I'm concerned, once you've got a passport (unless you lied in order to obtain it) you keep it.


  3. One of my political heroes, Enoch Powell, made the same reasonable point as you make, Scott, regarding the necessity of treating all resident British passport - holders as equals under the law.

    I use the word resident advisedly because some Hong Kong British passports do not confer UK right of abode upon the holders,

    Interestingly, we are now seeing the beginnings of a movement in the direction of UK passport revocation for a class of offenders disfavoured by Theresa May.

    A good thing or not?

    1. He's one of my political heroes too, Colin. The first book about contemporary politics I ever read was Paul Foot's "The Rise of Enoch Powell", when I was 16 or 17. I started it with an open mind. By the end of it (it was mercifully short), I realised that Powell was by no means the swivel-eyed loon depicted by the BBC (in particular), the left-wing press (in general) - and, of course, the leader of his own party - and that left-wing commentators deal mainly in lies, smears, innuendo, misrepresentation, hysteria and moral preening. No change there.

      Odd how the UK was so keen to keep out Hong Kongers, but relaxed about letting in so many utterly useless and/or positively harmful immigrants.

      I presume that Theresa May's passport revocation idea was a political stunt to boost her leadership prospects rather than a serious proposal. The UK issued these blisters passports and I'm not aware (I could be wrong) that they did so on condition they didn't go and do something wicked. After all, many of them were born here. If they've broken the law (one assumes they have) then prosecute them when they get home. If that's a problem - because of the left-liberal wetness of much of the judiciary and the malicious stupidity of the Europeans who now seem to control our courts - then the Home Secretary should try to change the system.