In an amazing statement revealing just how completely and utterly out of touch he is with the indigenous British people, David Cameron’s poverty tsar, the Labour MP Frank Field has said that the White working classes are so alienated from society that they should attend citizenship ceremonies alongside immigrants!!!!
Frank Field told a conference this week that English society has ‘lost confidence in what it is’ and needs to ‘relearn the rules’ by which it used to live.
Mr Field made his comments amid growing concerns about the impact of immigration on white working class communities, some of whom are turning to nationalist parties as unemployment rises.
Mr Field told the audience of academics that the Labour Party was once dominated by a working class agenda, but that it is now dominated by a middle-class elite. He was speaking at a symposium called ‘Diversity and the White Working Class: white flight, anti-immigration politics and integration’ hosted by Birkbeck, University of London and the think-tank Demos.
He said: ‘We’ve moved to a stage where what was that minority is in a governing position, which imposes upon the working class its moral economy… there is a real crisis of representation.’
So, what may we ask is Mr Fields erudite solution to a situation in which the White working classes, currently being dispossessed and displaced by a tidal wave of uncontrolled mass immigration from the Third World? What does he propose as a way of dispelling their feelings of alienation from the political establishment?
Does he propose placing greater emphasis on the needs and priorities of our indigenous people, addressing the issues of concern to us and so that the ‘crisis of representation’ can be resolved?
No!
Talking about the ‘Mickey Mouse’ citizenship ceremonies that immigrants applying for British citizenship are required to undergo, Frank Field states: “I argue not to have these wonderful citizenship ceremonies just for people who want to come here, I think the poor working class in Birkenhead needs them.
“We need to relearn what these rules are because they are not taught by the intermediary organisations which used to be very strong.”
Apparently, the problem here as far as Mr Field is concerned is not that the political elites are ignoring the needs and wishes of the indigenous British people, but that we British people need to have our ‘noses rubbed’ in the ‘excrement’ by being forced to watch and undergo the same sham citizenship process that exists for immigrants. Mr Field apparently believes that opposition to mass uncontrolled immigration stems from a condition whereby the indigenous British people are not ‘British enough’ and that if only we can be made to absorb the ersatz ‘Britishness’ of our immigrant communities, all will be well!!!
Earlier this year, in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme intended to deflect the anger of traditional Labour voters over the immigrant flood that Labour permitted during their most recent period in power, Labour leader, Ed Miliband admitted that the last Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people’s concerns” over immigration.
The Labour leader said his party got “the numbers wrong” when estimating the number of migrants who would flock to the UK when restrictions on movements from Poland and other Eastern European countries were lifted in 2004.
“We didn’t get this right in government because I think we underestimated the impact,” Mr Miliband said. “We did get the numbers wrong… I don’t think we were sufficiently alive to people’s concerns once people had come into this country.”
Listening to these words one might be forgiven for thinking that the previous Labour government actually made a genuine attempt to calculate the numbers of immigrants entering Britain and to address the concerns of their White working class voters, yet we know this to be lies.
In an article for the Evening Standard of 23rd October 2009, former Labour Party speech writer Andrew Neather wrote: “I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of [immigration] controls.
“It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.
“That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office think-tank.
“The PIU’s reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
“Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
“Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled ‘RDS Occasional Paper no. 67 -Migration: an economic and social analysis’, focused heavily on the labour market case, but the 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. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far
“Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.”
So there we have it! Far from Labour, ‘getting it wrong’, like some silly schoolboy who can’t add up without using his fingers and toes, Labour deliberately set out to flood Britain with immigrants regardless of the adverse impact upon their core White working class vote.
Furthermore, Labour having ‘rubbed our noses in it’ once by facilitating the dispossession and displacement of our people through mass immigration, Frank Field now wants to ‘rub our noses in it’ again by suggesting that we British should be forced to prove our Britishness by undergoing the same sham citizenship ceremonies provided for immigrants.
The Movement of National Salvation exists in order to organise our people in the defence of our national interests. If you wish to become a part of our organisation and fight for a country of our own, then please email me, Max Musson at [email protected] .
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
There’s two points here, one is why are the working class disenfranchised or others for that matter?
Well that has everything to do with our politicians, if they constantly act against your best interests then why would you engage with what they do?
Whole northern towns left to rot once their main industry went.
Consider the article about Birmingham on British Resistance & how that went downhill very fast.
Secondly the more disturbing point is the idea that someone who was born here might not be considered a citizen unless they sign up to what politicians are doing.
In others words if you don’t sign up for multiculturalism & diversity & all the other corrupt crap, you will be a non citizen, getting only the disadvantages & none of the advantages of the state.
But in the end there will be no advantages as it collapses under its own weight.
BritishActivism
- Edit
Out of all the politicians that deck the ‘Houses Of Treason’, rightly or wrongly I have always had a little bit more time for Frank Field than many of the other clowns that dominate politics. He appeared to be in a different league to the Ed Balls, the Harriet Harman’s, the Simon Hughes, Chris Bryant’s and George Osborne’s of this den of iniquity that politics has become.
.
However, on this one he has seriously slipped up. I have even written a little article on it myself, on my blog. I shall therefore not repeat it all here.
.
What I did want to say here though is relating to this much talked about “apology” speech by Ed Miliband. Many of the articles I read yesterday in the press about this comment by Frank Field, mentioned this Labour apology that they had ‘got it wrong’ on immigration.
.
However, for those who have not read his speech in full, I would like to point out how there is no real apology. In fact, much of the speech is quite the opposite.
.
Sure, it states some well-known problems of agency workers, wage undercutting, lack of training for those already here and how there needs to be more ‘regulation’ to make things ‘fair’ and on a ‘level playing field’ – and yes, who can argue with that? Much of what is said is true and stating the blindingly obvious – but is that the same thing as an apology for what they have done to Britain as a people and as a nation?
.
I do not think so.
.
For example, here are some extracts from the ‘apology’ speech he gave:
(see: https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/06/22/ed-miliband-s-immigration-speech-in-full)
.
“To have the right debate about immigration, we must avoid two dangers. The first is the trap of wishing away public concern about immigration, failing to address it, and hoping it goes away. The second is either in rhetoric or in promises made, suggesting that we can close Britain off from the world, when all of us know we cannot.”
.
“Britain must control its borders but it must always face outwards to the world. The Britain I believe in is a confident and optimistic country, not one which is insecure and inward looking.If people are looking for a politician who says immigration is just bad for Britain, that’s not me.”
.
“I believe immigration has benefits, economically, culturally and socially. Our economy has gained from being open to talent from across the world”.
.
“Some who have come here have gone on to win Nobel prizes, run successful businesses and lecture in our universities. Britain’s industry, music, sport and art have been enriched by the arrival of different cultures.On Sunday when England take on Italy in the European Championships, many of our team will be the children or grandchildren of immigrants”.
.
“I love this city. London. A global city. That won the Olympics because we’re a multi-ethnic city. And part of the reason I love my country is because we have a proud history of welcoming those fleeing persecution.”
.
That does not sound to me like they have any regrets over the kind of country they and their predecessors have constructed.
.
They seem proud of it, and that they would do it all again tomorrow, only this time maybe address proportions of Job Centre applicants, fiddle around with half-baked apprenticeship schemes to hold as a fig leaf whilst they continue to pour people in, and address various other non-crucial side effects of what the ultimate problem really is.
.
Anyway, I can’t stop. I have a citizenship ceremony to get to. I intend to come out with a piece of paper telling me I am British and that I hold a “shared set of {internationalist} values” that makes me British and proud to be a national of a nation from everywhere…..only then I will really belong here and feel part of the new British society. …… (kidding!).
.
Max Musson
- Edit
That’s right British Activism, Labour didn’t ‘get it wrong’, from their perspective they got it absolutely right.
Steve
- Edit
All part of the plan, the agenda.
Steven
- Edit
Labour DELIBERATELY set-out to destroy this country WITH MALICE FULLY INTENDED. For the truth is, many within that party have not forgiven the fact that the British are on the whole a ‘conservative’ (with a small c) minded lot and as a result we have elected the Tory Party far more often than the Labour Party. To solve this political problem, the Labour Party hit upon the idea of importing a new electorate to replace the one that had such an aversion to voting for them. They knew they could do this because they reckoned (succesfully) that too many Labour voters might moan about it but would still vote Labour as their dads and grandfathers had before them.
The Labour Party has always had a large number of people within it that basically hate Britain and the British people and this is in both the ‘old’ guise and more so the ‘new’ one. After all, doesn’t the Labour Party pride itself on its INTERNATIONALISM?
s ducain
- Edit
When you see a Conservative Government sharing duties with Dim Libs and then you get a Labour Party MP with a position in the Government, you know conclusively that we have a uni-political system. The illusion of a choice between 3 parties is created in order to keep content the less enquiring and more gullible sections of the British Electorate.
The people who REALLY control the things that matter such as economics and immigration, are the ones that need to be rooted out and neutralised before the relatively easy and common-sense issues can be resolved. These people are bankers, but not just any bankers, they are the acolytes and members of the plutocratic dynastic banking families. They operate all over the World but are mostly based in New York City, the City of London and Frankfurt. For the very reason of lack of governmental control over these parasites, they inevitably use their huge wealth to get what they want politically.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I believe Field is a high church Anglican.
DeadmanWalking
- Edit
Honestly is that the best that Frank Field can come up with “a citizenship ceremony for the indigenous people of this country” and I’ve read that he’s supposed to be a great thinker which would mean that he is rubbing our noses in it.As far as we should all be concerned frank Field has just insulted the British people with his degrading suggestion and if I may make a suggestion of my own why don’t you Mr.Field go and live in down with the Third World detritus like the indigenous people have to.
s ducain
- Edit
Agree with most here, most of our politicians are bought. Can you tell me Max, why in my previous comment on this article you edited out a few bits?
Max Musson
- Edit
We edit comments by readers; if they contain foul language and incitements to violence; if they contain language that could result in this site being prosecuted for an incitement to racial hatred; and if they contain assertions that could potentially result in libel actions.
The writers for this website take great care to ensure that our statements are provable fact and to ensure that we make our point without unduly exposing ourselves to the risk of prosecution. While you and I may strongly suspect that members of a dynastic banking family are involved in the corruption of national politics, we must be specific in our accusations about which members are involved and what they have specifically done, and not simply libel the entire family.
Elvia
- Edit
Parents who are authoritarian also believe that their word is law and do not tolerate disagreement.
The same parents that parented the cheerful
children are now required to parent the defiant child.
Some parents would automatically begin to praise and do it
behind the “you did your best and that’s all that counts” shield.