Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Government of National Unity  (Read 914 times)

Offline King Nuts

I think it's a good idea to get more unity as well as expertise into the Government. Let's get Messrs Blair, Brown, Major, Starmer in, and perhaps Angela Rayner and Diane Abbott too.

Said no sane person, ever.

Offline Stapler

Why believe the UK government anyway? They lied about WMD. Who’s to say they are not lying now about this ‘virus?’
The total death count in 2020 is no different to the total death count at this time in 2019 after the flu season.

You would think there would be another 6000 deaths on top of the figures but as they are attributing all deaths to Covid-19 the figures remain the same.

If some bloke fell off a roof they would say he caught the virus on the way down and would record him as dying from covid-19!

Banned reason: For having fuck all useful to say
Banned by: Head1

Offline David1970

Why believe the UK government anyway? They lied about WMD. Who’s to say they are not lying now about this ‘virus?’
The total death count in 2020 is no different to the total death count at this time in 2019 after the flu season.

You would think there would be another 6000 deaths on top of the figures but as they are attributing all deaths to Covid-19 the figures remain the same.

If some bloke fell off a roof they would say he caught the virus on the way down and would record him as dying from covid-19!

Fuckwit troll

That’s not an insult but a technical assessment

Offline catweazle

Fuckwit troll

That’s not an insult but a technical assessment

+1000000

Offline Doc Holliday


The total death count in 2020 is no different to the total death count at this time in 2019 after the flu season.

You would think there would be another 6000 deaths on top of the figures but as they are attributing all deaths to Covid-19 the figures remain the same.


Please can you provide the data source for this?

Offline Wadebridge

I think it's a good idea to get more unity as well as expertise into the Government. Let's get Messrs Blair, Brown, Major, Starmer in, and perhaps Angela Rayner and Diane Abbott too.
Said no sane person, ever.
I'm well aware you mentioned this idea 'tongue-in-cheek'.
Nevertheless, it was unnerving to see Mr. Blair, as seems so prolifically these days, being given a lot of air time on Ch4 news and elsewhere, spouting his opinion of how the pandemic is being handled.
It's clear that he doesn't think the UK government is doing enough, but it was more than that ... he almost seemed to be aching for an overlord's position, maybe in charge of the government's much needed mass testing strategy, or similar. That's how I read his pitch anyway.
So this megalomaniac is now looking to the out of control coronavirus pandemic as a means by which he can take the reigns of power again and be seen as the man who 'saved the day'. Thereby redeeming himself as a force for good after all.  :vomit:
Banned reason: Posting on politics again despite previous 7 day ban.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline Beamer

Fuckwit troll

That’s not an insult but a technical assessment

+1000000000%

Offline Beamer

Please can you provide the data source for this?

He can't because anything from the prat is BLX

Offline Jerk Chicken

I'm well aware you mentioned this idea 'tongue-in-cheek'.
Nevertheless, it was unnerving to see Mr. Blair, as seems so prolifically these days, being given a lot of air time on Ch4 news and elsewhere, spouting his opinion of how the pandemic is being handled.
It's clear that he doesn't think the UK government is doing enough, but it was more than that ... he almost seemed to be aching for an overlord's position, maybe in charge of the government's much needed mass testing strategy, or similar. That's how I read his pitch anyway.
So this megalomaniac is now looking to the out of control coronavirus pandemic as a means by which he can take the reigns of power again and be seen as the man who 'saved the day'. Thereby redeeming himself as a force for good after all.  :vomit:

Regardless what you think of Blair, he does happen to be one of our most successful PMs at the despatch  box in history so of course he will be given air time.

Love him or despise him he is spot on regarding some sort of Testing Minister in whatever guise and to me he would do a significantly better job of that role than Hancock who at times appears to look like he is quicksand.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 10:41:22 am by Jerk Chicken »
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline Beamer

Regardless what you think of Blair, he does happen to be one of our most successful PMs at the despatch  box in history so of course he will be given air time.

Love him or despise him he is spot on regarding some sort of Testing Minister in whatever guise and to me he would do a significantly better job of that role than Hancock who at times appears to look like he is quicksand.

After Hancock lied about talking to the major retailers (at the start of this crisis) I wouldn't trust anything he says.

Offline King Nuts

Regardless what you think of Blair, he does happen to be one of our most successful PMs at the despatch  box in history so of course he will be given air time.



I don't think I can ever disregard what I think of Blair. The man led us into a war that was nothing short of catastrophic, and with little or no evidence to validate his actions.

Add to the fact that he and the vile Mandelson cooked up the idea of flooding Britain with Labour-voting immigrants, and I think we have a person whose legacy is appalling and that has been hugely damaging to this country.

And yet the MSM seems to love him. He's rarely off the TV these days. What does that tell you?

Trump made some banal 'pussy' quip years ago, and the MSM has never forgiven him. Blair is directly responsible for untold thousands of deaths. The hypocrisy never fails to astound.



Offline David1970

I don't think I can ever disregard what I think of Blair. The man led us into a war that was nothing short of catastrophic, and with little or no evidence to validate his actions.

Add to the fact that he and the vile Mandelson cooked up the idea of flooding Britain with Labour-voting immigrants, and I think we have a person whose legacy is appalling and that has been hugely damaging to this country.

And yet the MSM seems to love him. He's rarely off the TV these days. What does that tell you?

Trump made some banal 'pussy' quip years ago, and the MSM has never forgiven him. Blair is directly responsible for untold thousands of deaths. The hypocrisy never fails to astound.

I agree totally with your war comments, and I don’t like Mandelson but you are going off on one of your conspiracy theories again. Stop listen to the voice in your head. 

Offline King Nuts

I agree totally with your war comments, and I don’t like Mandelson but you are going off on one of your conspiracy theories again. Stop listen to the voice in your head.

Will you fucking quit with the conspiracy theory thing. Getting very tedious.

I'm not making it up.

Read this: External Link/Members Only

Online daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,268
  • Likes: 381
  • Reviews: 24
Will you fucking quit with the conspiracy theory thing. Getting very tedious.

I'm not making it up.

Read this: External Link/Members Only
Not available to read freely so discounted by me. Unless you can link to a reliable source that is accessible to all.

Offline The High Sparrow

I don't think I can ever disregard what I think of Blair. The man led us into a war that was nothing short of catastrophic, and with little or no evidence to validate his actions.

Add to the fact that he and the vile Mandelson cooked up the idea of flooding Britain with Labour-voting immigrants, and I think we have a person whose legacy is appalling and that has been hugely damaging to this country.

And yet the MSM seems to love him. He's rarely off the TV these days. What does that tell you?

Trump made some banal 'pussy' quip years ago, and the MSM has never forgiven him. Blair is directly responsible for untold thousands of deaths. The hypocrisy never fails to astound.

Fox News and some other members of the MSM love Trump and twist themselves backwards to justify the megalomanic, narcissistic actions of Pussy Grabber in Chief

Offline King Nuts

Not available to read freely so discounted by me. Unless you can link to a reliable source that is accessible to all.

I don't subscribe to the Telegraph website but I can see it freely enough.

If you want to disregard it, you're free to. Makes no difference to me.

Offline King Nuts

Fox News and some other members of the MSM love Trump and twist themselves backwards to justify the megalomanic, narcissistic actions of Pussy Grabber in Chief

So what? All the USA's media outlets are partisan.

Which is why certain people get away with stuff and others don't. The Clintons are the most diabolical pair of politicians the US has ever produced, IMHO. But pretty much everyone gives them both a free pass.


Offline Jerk Chicken

I don't think I can ever disregard what I think of Blair. The man led us into a war that was nothing short of catastrophic, and with little or no evidence to validate his actions.

Add to the fact that he and the vile Mandelson cooked up the idea of flooding Britain with Labour-voting immigrants, and I think we have a person whose legacy is appalling and that has been hugely damaging to this country.

And yet the MSM seems to love him. He's rarely off the TV these days. What does that tell you?

Trump made some banal 'pussy' quip years ago, and the MSM has never forgiven him. Blair is directly responsible for untold thousands of deaths. The hypocrisy never fails to astound.

As I said I totally get that you despise Blair and that's fine we thrive on different opinions.

I do not share your political view on Blair's Lab immigration policy, WMD or his spin doctor in-chief Mandleson.

This country elected him 3 times as their PM. He never lost an election. If that does not give you air time during a national emergency nothing will.

Many voters are still interested in what Blair has to say hence the air-time.

I know it will never happen buf Hancock is struggling, Bojo holed up in St Thomas hospital; Blair why not?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 12:15:04 pm by Jerk Chicken »
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline King Nuts

As I said I totally get that you despise Blair and that's fine we thrive on different opinions.

I do not share your political view on Blair's Lab immigration policy, WMD or his spin doctor in-chief Mandleson.

 Blair why not?

It's not a 'view'. Blair and Mandelson had a plan. It's a matter of record, not some fucking conspiracy theory.

As regards 'why not?' He's not an elected representative of anyone, that's why not.


Offline Beamer

As I said I totally get that you despise Blair and that's fine we thrive on different opinions.

I do not share your political view on Blair's Lab immigration policy, WMD or his spin doctor in-chief Mandleson.

This country elected him 3 times as their PM. He never lost an election. If that does not give you air time during a national emergency nothing will.

Many voters are still interested in what Blair has to say hence the air-time.

I know it will never happen buf Hancock is struggling, Bojo holed up in St Thomas hospital; Blair why not?

We could do worse   :hi:

Offline David1970

So what? All the USA's media outlets are partisan.

Which is why certain people get away with stuff and others don't. The Clintons are the most diabolical pair of politicians the US has ever produced, IMHO. But pretty much everyone gives them both a free pass.

What free pass for the Clintons

Monica Lewinsky sex scandal
Whitewater property scandal
Private email account when Secretary of State
Sarajevo Bosnia lies about running under fire
Benghazi consulate attack.

Are you listening to that voice in your head again

Offline The High Sparrow

What free pass for the Clintons

Monica Lewinsky sex scandal
Whitewater property scandal
Private email account when Secretary of State
Sarajevo Bosnia lies about running under fire
Benghazi consulate attack.

Are you listening to that voice in your head again

It doesn't fit his narrative so he will choose to ignore it

Offline The High Sparrow

So what? All the USA's media outlets are partisan.

Which is why certain people get away with stuff and others don't. The Clintons are the most diabolical pair of politicians the US has ever produced, IMHO. But pretty much everyone gives them both a free pass.

The only ones who say the harp on about the MSM are the Trump supporting conspiracy theory nutters,  who harp on about a Clinton supporting deep state

Offline David1970

It doesn't fit his narrative so he will choose to ignore it

Or what you mean he has been caught talking total bollocks again.
He would not know the truth if he tripped over it, to busy with his silly conspiracy theory’s and the voice in his head.

Offline Home Alone


Many voters are still interested in what Blair has to say hence the air-time.

How many's "many", JC?

I know it will never happen buf Hancock is struggling, Bojo holed up in St Thomas hospital; Blair why not?
Erm, well, for two basic reasons: i] he isn't a member of either house of parliament; ii] he's a divisive figure; not one of unity.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 12:34:55 pm by Home Alone »

Offline Happylad

And we`d be back in the EU toadying to Barnier and his colleagues in no time at all, so that Blair could revive his hopes of becomeing one of the top dogs round the dinner bowl.

Offline King Nuts

Or what you mean he has been caught talking total bollocks again.
He would not know the truth if he tripped over it, to busy with his silly conspiracy theory’s and the voice in his head.

This is now getting immensely tedious. Change the record, will you.

Oh, and the plural of theory is 'theories'. And it's 'too' busy, not 'to'.

Offline Jerk Chicken

How many's "many", JC?
Erm, well, for two basic reasons: i] he isn't a member of either house of parliament; ii] he's a divisive figure; not one of unity.

Blair is on every mainstream media outlet I can think of and his presence is growing. So the editors must be getting a response from public/viewing figures.

He does not need to be an elected representative .. is Dominic Cummings ?

As I said it won't happen but Blair has more experience than that entire cabinet put together and he was never known as a dithering Politician.

Divisive? ... history has shown most leaders are, Blair is no different.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 01:08:22 pm by Jerk Chicken »
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline King Nuts

It doesn't fit his narrative so he will choose to ignore it

Clinton still gets a welcome, or is at least not ostracised in most media outlets.

If you haven't been aware of this, then you've not been paying attention.

Offline King Nuts

What free pass for the Clintons

Monica Lewinsky sex scandal
Whitewater property scandal
Private email account when Secretary of State
Sarajevo Bosnia lies about running under fire
Benghazi consulate attack.

Are you listening to that voice in your head again

The Clintons got away with all those things.

No court case, no jail time, no nothing.


Offline Jerk Chicken

It's not a 'view'. Blair and Mandelson had a plan. It's a matter of record, not some fucking conspiracy theory.

As regards 'why not?' He's not an elected representative of anyone, that's why not.

It is a view, your view, which is absolutely fine. I just happen to disagree with your view with regards to what you think Blair and Mandleson's plan was.
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline King Nuts

OK, for all those who seem to struggle with accessing the Telegraph piece, here it is:



Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

Tom Whitehead

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor

6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

A Home Office spokesman said: “Our new flexible points based system gives us greater control on those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.

“Britain's borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards to foreign nationals, we have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK.

“The British people can be confident that immigration is under control.”

Offline Jerk Chicken

So one of the most right-winged broadsheets in the history of British print publishes this and you hang your hat on it :dash:

... "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett....

So are we to take this piece as gospel and Andrew Neather is "the man" .. oh please!

The Telegraph have never forgiven Blair for his three successive election victories. 


« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 01:25:20 pm by Jerk Chicken »
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline King Nuts

So one of the most right-winged broadsheets in the history of British print publishes this and you hang your hat on it :dash:

... "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett....

So are we to take this piece as gospel and Andrew Neather is "the man" .. oh please!

The Telegraph have never forgiven Blair for his three successive election victories.

Right winged? Arf.

It's a story. I take it all with a pinch of salt, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me, that the manipulative Mandelson, Blair and arch motherfucker Campbell would cook up something like this.

Besides which, look at the numbers from 2001 and look at them now. Labour did indeed get the outcome they wanted.


Offline Jerk Chicken

Right winged? Arf.

It's a story. I take it all with a pinch of salt, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me, that the manipulative Mandelson, Blair and arch motherfucker Campbell would cook up something like this.

Besides which, look at the numbers from 2001 and look at them now. Labour did indeed get the outcome they wanted.

It is a politically biased piece of journalism I am sure even you can see that.

Numbers? ... some will argue "immigrants" have given significantly more to the U.K then they have taken out and so U.K Ltd has prospered as a result. It would then follow Blair's immigration policy was justified he was putting his country first  which we would like to think every PM would do.:D

Opinions, opinions, opinions  :rolleyes:
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline David1970

Add to the fact that he and the vile Mandelson cooked up the idea of flooding Britain with Labour-voting immigrants

I quickly read the article you posted from the right wing Telegraph owned by the tax avoiding Barclay Brothers, I did not notice the bit about “ flooding Britain with Labour voting immigrants”
Could you please confirm that it says this?

Offline The High Sparrow


What free pass for the Clintons

Monica Lewinsky sex scandal
Whitewater property scandal
Private email account when Secretary of State
Sarajevo Bosnia lies about running under fire
Benghazi consulate attack.

Are you listening to that voice in your head again
The Clintons got away with all those things.

No court case, no jail time, no nothing.

define nothing:

I am old enough to remember:
The Clinton impeachment over Lewinsky and Paula Jones External Link/Members Only and all the media that attracted

white water scandal and the Starr investigation: External Link/Members Only and all the media attention that attracted


The Clinton impeachment External Link/Members Only

the email scandal the FBI investigated to death

Benghazi which had 10 investigations including by FBI, 6 house committees, the senate

so again define got away with it  :rolleyes: :rolleyes:




Offline David1970

The Clintons got away with all those things.

No court case, no jail time, no nothing.

Clintons

Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, admitted laying and sanctioned by Congress
Whitewater property scandal, investigations  by House committee found to be false allegations
Private email account when Secretary of State, invest aged by the FBI not case to answer
Sarajevo Bosnia lies about running under fire, admitted lying but did nothing illegal
Benghazi consulate attack, never proved her fault, but what does the truth mean to you.

Are you listening to that voice in your head again

Offline King Nuts


Are you listening to that voice in your head again

You really are sounding like the proverbial stuck record.

If someone can only respond with abuse, even the low-grade stuff like you come up with, it usually indicates a lack of ability to come up with a coherent response or counter-argument.

Much easier to sit behind your keyboard and call everyone you disagree with a twat.


Offline King Nuts



so again define got away with it  :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Didn't face jail time. Didn't even get ostracised by mainstream media.

Bill's had all manner of rape allegations made against him over the years. None of them got anywhere.


Offline King Nuts

It is a politically biased piece of journalism I am sure even you can see that.



Oh, really? Wow! Who'd have thought a British daily newspaper journalist would ever write a 'politically biased' article.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 03:00:50 pm by King Nuts »

Offline Jerk Chicken

Oh, really? Wow! Who'd have thought a British daily newspaper journalist would ever write a 'politically biased' article.

That is precisely my point my learned friend.

It was, in my opinion, a weak example to use and/or hang your hat on, if that was what you intended to do, to try and add kudos or substance to your arguement and dislike of Blair's immigration policy.

Saying look at the figures from X year to Y year is far to simplistic.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2020, 03:29:00 pm by Jerk Chicken »
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline David1970

You really are sounding like the proverbial stuck record.

If someone can only respond with abuse, even the low-grade stuff like you come up with, it usually indicates a lack of ability to come up with a coherent response or counter-argument.

Much easier to sit behind your keyboard and call everyone you disagree with a twat.

You said the Clinton’s got a easy time from the MSM, I showed they did not and you call that low-grade, only replying to your conspiracy theory.
The Telegraph article does not back up your conspiracy theory, you claim this low-grade, only replying to your conspiracy theory.
What abuse did I come up when I debunked your conspiracy theories.

As you have said in a previous thread, you have a voice in the back of your head, it may be time to get a grip of reality.

Offline David1970

I think it's a good idea to get more unity as well as expertise into the Government. Let's get Messrs Blair, Brown, Major, Starmer in, and perhaps Angela Rayner and Diane Abbott too.

Said no sane person, ever.

You wrote this “ Said no sane person, ever”, can I point out you said it.

Offline King Nuts

You said the Clinton’s got a easy time from the MSM, I showed they did not and you call that low-grade, only replying to your conspiracy theory.
The Telegraph article does not back up your conspiracy theory, you claim this low-grade, only replying to your conspiracy theory.
What abuse did I come up when I debunked your conspiracy theories.

As you have said in a previous thread, you have a voice in the back of your head, it may be time to get a grip of reality.

You're getting a bit obsessed. I think you need to take it easy and fixate on something or someone else.

Offline King Nuts

That is precisely my point my learned friend.

It was, in my opinion, a weak example to use and/or hang your hat on, if that was what you intended to do, to try and add kudos or substance to your arguement and dislike of Blair's immigration policy.

Saying look at the figures from X year to Y year is far to simplistic.

Not sure there's anything too simplistic about the rise of the UK's population in recent years and its acknowledged national and ethnic mix, particularly in urban areas.

I can't be bothered to refer you back to the ONS website, but it's all there.

You can throw whatever you want back at me.

It has suited the Labour Party to have mass immigration. Whatever Blair and Mandelson did or didn't cook up, the end result has been that Labour has done well out of it.


Offline David1970

You're getting a bit obsessed. I think you need to take it easy and fixate on something or someone else.

Just wanting to help you with your problem :hi:

Offline Jerk Chicken

Not sure there's anything too simplistic about the rise of the UK's population in recent years and its acknowledged national and ethnic mix, particularly in urban areas.

I can't be bothered to refer you back to the ONS website, but it's all there.

You can throw whatever you want back at me.

It has suited the Labour Party to have mass immigration. Whatever Blair and Mandelson did or didn't cook up, the end result has been that Labour has done well out of it.

I am fully aware of the national statistics the problem with stats is most people don't know how to interpret them or put them into context. Of course I am not suggesting, for one minute, you are one of them :D

As you have started quoting the rise of the ethnic mix particularly in urban areas I am going to leave this conversation right here.
Banned reason: Previously banned (Sean70) - Pimp, dangerous and using UKP review threats to demand extra services
Banned by: Kev40ish

Offline tynetunnel

So one of the most right-winged broadsheets in the history of British print publishes this and you hang your hat on it :dash:

... "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett....

So are we to take this piece as gospel and Andrew Neather is "the man" .. oh please!

The Telegraph have never forgiven Blair for his three successive election victories.

It’s true, Blair did have three successive election wins. Blunkett was promoted to Home Secretary in 2001 to deal with issues at home, including immigration, but he couldn’t see any problem...  :hi:

Offline Beamer

It’s true, Blair did have three successive election wins. Blunkett was promoted to Home Secretary in 2001 to deal with issues at home, including immigration, but he couldn’t see any problem...  :hi:

Poor taste.....