While All Eyes Were On The ‘Miliband’s Father’ Debacle…

…Ian Birrell gloated over the fact that the government’s plan to elect a new people has been a rip-roaring success:

… the migrants who came to Britain in big numbers in recent decades are moving to the suburbs. This is not surprising. The last census showed white Britons to be a minority in London, and one-third of the capital’s population foreign born. As incoming communities make money and start families, many move out to the suburbs in search of bigger homes, better schools and safer environs, like generations before them.

… these migrant families may share suburban values, but they do not share their politics. Research last year revealed only one in six ethnic minority voters supported the Tories at the last election. As Lord Ashcroft, the Tory grandee who funded the study, said: not being white was the best predictor that a person would not vote Conservative.

And why is his? Well, because they prefer to listen to the chips on their shoulders, it seems.

When pollsters drill down, non-white voters are deterred by the party’s past even when – as is often the case – they share their values and views. The Conservatives are seen as historically hostile: the party of Enoch Powell and Norman Tebbit, that passed laws dividing migrant families and failed to stand up to apartheid in South Africa. This brand contamination is so strong that even when candidates from ethnic minorities are selected, they are seen as betraying their background.

Even when that background is socially conservative with a small ‘c’…

The last presidential election in the United States demonstrated the dangers of ignoring non-white votes.

And, also, the terrible consequences of what such partisan voting can mean. Remember ObamaPhone?

Yet neighbouring Canada showed attitudes can change – and change fast. In under a decade the Conservatives overturned an accepted wisdom that racial minorities always voted Liberal – more than tripling their vote from “new Canadians” with a sustained campaign of engagement backed by visa reform and a public apology for past misdeeds.

That’s your suggestion to win votes? Apologise for past ‘misdeeds’ while glossing over uncomfortable facts that the people demanding the apology were often no better themselves?

The Conservative party here has begun making similar moves, setting up a new unit to improve links with ethnic-minority communities. They have pushed national issues that play well with particular groups – such as the abolition of mixed hospital wards with Muslim women – and identified other targeted ideas, such as relaxing health and safety rules on headgear for Sikhs.

I despair.

The Conservatives face a fundamental choice: do they want to chase the votes of pessimists who preferred Britain as it was in the past, or those people living in the real world as it is today? Especially when the danger is driving away their supporters of the future – whether young voters who are much more comfortable with immigration, or ethnic minorities who are an increasing political force.

Will the last Englishman to leave please turn out the lights..?

6 comments for “While All Eyes Were On The ‘Miliband’s Father’ Debacle…

  1. Johnnydub
    October 7, 2013 at 11:04 am

    And thus it comes to pass – the vast uncontrolled immigration permanently alters the make up of the UK – socially, politically and demographically.

    The scandal isn’t that Ed Milland’s father was a Marxist – is that the Labour party consists of such utterly vindictive c*nts…

  2. October 7, 2013 at 11:35 am

    This was already happening and why Michael Howard lost. It is also the reason why a mainstream conservative from a working class background such as David Davis could not win the party leadership contest.

    The only way Conservatives have a chance at winning is with a centrist line-up. It’s tough with a generation who have already been told either here in school or abroad through Marxist indoctrination how awful capitalism and self-reliance are.

  3. jaded
    October 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    The decent ones don’t want to live in a ghetto either perhaps?

  4. Voice of Reason
    October 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    When you mention ‘Obamaphone’, I assume that you mean the program to get telephones to the poor for emergencies. No matter what one might think of the idea, the program began under Bush II, I believe.

    • October 7, 2013 at 2:38 pm

      Reagan. It was to ensure that every house had a telephone for emergencies.

      Bush II upgraded these to mobiles, IIRC.

      Since then, phone technology has evolved immensely. Republicans — including voters — are still happy for everyone to have a landline, taxpayer-funded. It is the proliferation of mobile technology and the expectations of the recipients in this regard which cause American conservatives issues.

      Furthermore, although there are controls in place which the shops providing these mobile phones are to employ, the shopkeepers rarely use them. As a result, a racket in free phone acquisition and resale has emerged (prior to Obamaphones). Some people have been able to acquire as many as 30 for themselves; some of these devices are also resold to street gangs for their use.

  5. sunder_crapwaila
    October 7, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Birrell is utterly revolting. Your typical left/liberal hypocrite, who ‘journalism’ tends to involved twisting and massaging the truth until it fits his political views.

Comments are closed.