The NHS is not a business. Life is sacred

Living in a mass consumption society, we have grown accustomed to words like 'value for money'. This expression is applied to practically everything, including healthcare.

Suddenly, we hear even British doctors saying that keeping a human being alive is not value for money and stating that adding another day to a human being’s life is too expensive. This kind of expressions remind me of Nazi health economics, when school children were asked to calculate how much money could be saved by destroying the lives of disabled human beings.

Life is sacred. Life is not about value for money. Decisions about healthcare based on money are a slippery slope towards a dehumanised society and are made in ignorance of the sacred value of life. The aim of constant medical research is not about money. It is about Life.

If we stop eating because it costs money, we wouldn’t be alive. Health is not a business concern. Health is a fundamental priority.

When we look at countries like the United States of America that are still living in the Middle Ages when it comes to providing healthcare to its citizens, we value our National Healthcare System.

The NHS is not a business. The NHS is not about value for money. The NHS is about Life itself. 

Carlos Cortiglia   

Margaret Hodge (née Oppenheimer) - Lies, deceit and hypocrisy

Within 24 hours, we have seen the Leader of the Labour Party and the Shadow Home Secretary criticizing the Labour government for its stance on immigration and now… we see none other than multibillionaire Margaret Hodge coming out with guns blazing criticizing Labour’s stance on immigration and taking the clothes of the British National Party. I don’t assume that Margaret Hodge could have said what she is saying now when she campaigned in Barking and Dagenham.

She says now “I think Labour should stop talking numbers. We should set up a system that allows a fairer allocation of limited resources because we have to have some form of rationing. There needs to be a system that gives some recognition to the length of time that someone has lived in the community when it comes to resources such as housing.”

Well, Margaret Hodge, welcome to the British National Party Manifesto. Should we remind Margaret Hodge who were the people that lived in Barking and Dagenham for the longer length of time before her political party opened the floodgates of immigration?

She then somehow contradicts herself and says ‘immigrant numbers are simply a result of globalisation and people will come here, one way or another’. Bitte, Frau Oppenheimer. Das ist nicht richtig! Wir sagen "it is up to the British people to decide who lives in Britain and who doesn’t. Don’t use Globalisation as an excuse to implement your policies of colonisation. It is up to the British people to decide who comes here and who doesn’t.

Has Margaret Hodge also forgotten how she managed to win the 2010 Barking and Dagenham Election? There is a BBC recording where we heard her saying something like ‘if they win, they will carry you on airplanes and throw you into the sea’. I don’t remember any of the so called free media or any member of the so called mainstream political parties or of the so called politically correct society criticizing what she said that in my view is nothing less than gross incitement to violence.

She goes even further and says ‘the amount of support I received from people in my constituency was extraordinary. The amount of open support I received from Westminster was zilch’. Well, what kind of support she was talking about? Did she need any support?

In terms of financial support, I don’t think Margaret Hodge needs any more money than the money she already has. In terms of political support, she had several para-political organizations, including the BBC, working for her. In terms of constituent numbers the woman that said that she didn’t need any white working class had more than enough non-white working class to help her, facilitated by flood immigration that started as soon as the Labour party became government in 1997.

Phoney candidate Margaret Hodge now criticizes both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party saying that they had a phoney war about numbers. She only mentioned housing and she conveniently forgot to mention the Welfare State that is the main attraction for Globalised mass migration.

As Baroness Shreela Flather denounced just a few days ago, immigration is a business for unscrupulous Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and others that use Polygamy as an excuse to milk the welfare state by having several wives claiming benefits and housing as single mothers. We should find out about Barking and Dagenham and about many of Margaret Hodge's constituents.

I wouldn't call ethnic cleansing 'a result of Globalisation'. I would call it a result of organized crime committed by a Labour government that used the Welfare State for its own political ends. Those who have lived in Britain for longer have been persecuted and called 'racists, nazis, fascists and bigots' simply because they have tried to stand up for their own rights.

Labour brought in the so called 'Positive Discrimination' and as a consequence of 'Positive Discrimination' entire communities have been decimated and more than 80 per cent of all jobs created in Britain in recent years have ended up in foreign hands. So, what? Has Margaret Hodge seen the light? 

Stemcor, her family company, was the world's largest privately owned steel-trading corporation with an annual turnover of £6.28 billion in 2008. When the Labour Party was in the red, she could have lifted the Labour Party out of debt single-handedly and it would have been pocket money for her. Did she? No, she didn't. She pursued her own interests in 'business dealings' in Barking and Dagenham and elsewhere. Eine grosse Scheiße diese Frau ist!

Carlos Cortiglia

Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper on Immigration

Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper publicly declared that the immigration boom DID drive down wages and living standards and said that the Labour government 'got it wrong' on border controls and said that British workers had been 'undercut'.

A national newspaper indicates that documents commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government revealed that immigrants from certain countries had low education levels and were more likely to claim unemployment benefits.

Grant Shapps, present Housing Minister, is repoted to have said that 'this is another disturbing cover-up by a Labour Party that failed in immigration and then tried to bury the truth.'

In terms of cover-ups (remember Blue Tongue and Foot and Mouth Disease), Labour is an expert in hiding the truth and we are waiting to see the link between a bill that went through Parliament to supposedly promote Trade Unions and Trade Union donations to the Labour Party.

I am not sure that BBC Panorama would like to investigate the 'financial affairs' of the Labour Party.

When the fight gets harder...

When the fight gets harder, the time comes to be tougher. You care. Join the fight. What counts above everything else is that we are still here. I see those who give up or walk away and turn against their comrades by helping the opposition. Many talk about heroism and then they fail to live up to the standards that they themselves so much spoke about.

There is one BNP and we are in it. I am not playing for positions. I don't complain about personal grievances. The party is bigger than any personal grievance and those who fail to understand this most fundamental truth fail as Nationalists.

Everytime I see people giving up or walking away and becoming useful fools working for the opposition, I remember the words: "England expects that every man will do his duty". I remember the verses of "IF", a poem written by Rudyard Kippling. This is our Trafalgar and our HMS Victory is called BNP.

Dying party increases its vote in General Elections from 192,745 to 563,743

Ignorance is at the root of comments made by some political commentators and bloggers when they mention the outcome of elections in the United Kingdom.

They compare the outcome of General Elections and the outcome of European Elections that cannot possibly be compared because they are run using different electoral systems and are not comparable in terms of the size of constituencies.

In General Elections there have been more than 600 different constituencies electing representatives using First-past-the-post and in European Elections about seventy representatives are elected from constituencies that include areas where the BNP would not stand in a General Election.

In 2010, the British National Party obtained the biggest number of votes obtained by the BNP in a General Election. In fact, in 2001 the BNP obtained 47,129 votes, in 2005 the BNP got 192,745 and in 2010 the BNP received 563,743 votes.

Under the previous leader of the BNP, the maximum number of votes the BNP got was 35,832. Under Nick Griffin, the BNP received 563,743.

Success in European Elections has also been remarkable. There were 102,647 votes in 1999, 808,200 votes in 2004 and 943,598 votes in 2009. These are not the kind of numbers obtained by a dying political party.

And what has happened to the National Front? The maximum number of votes obtained by NF was 27,065 and this happened in the General Election of 1983. In European Elections, the maximum number was 12,469 in 1994.

Talking about EDP, the maximum number of votes was 64,826 in 2010 and in a recent election in Enfield they only managed to obtain 21 votes.

The only one contender that for financial reasons and because of media support competes with the BNP is UKIP that in a General Election reached the mark of 920,334 and in European Elections reached the mark of 2,650,768 in 2004 and 2,498,226 in 2010.

Having said that, when you look at the record in General Elections there are no major differences. In 2010, UKIP got 920,334 and the BNP got 563,743. What is the major difference? In 2005, UKIP had 605,973 while in 2005 the BNP had only 192,745.

Compare the figures and you see that in 2010 the BNP vote was almost three times higher than it was in 2005.

Political operators that hate the success of the BNP want to make you believe that what happened in 2010 in Barking and Dagenham and in some other parts of the UK is representative of the support the British National Party has. Wrong! Support for the BNP at National Level went up from 192,745 to 563,743 in General Elections and from 808,200 to 943,598 in European Elections. 

For these successes to occur, the process of modernisation of the British National Party has been essential and a sine qua non requirement to widen support for the BNP. Those who criticize the BNP talk about 'not alienating the core vote'. What core vote? What are they talking about?

Let's look at the figures of Electoral results since 1983.

1983 - 14,621 (John Tyndall)

1987 - 553 (John Tyndall)

1992 - 7,631 (John Tyndall)

1997 - 35,832 (John Tyndall)

2001 - 47,129 (Nick Griffin)

2005 - 192,745 (Nick Griffin)

2010 - 563,743  (Nick Griffin) 

The process of modernisation started in 1999 meant that the BNP could move forward getting rid of the restraints imposed by the xenophobia of earlier years. Many of the critics of the present administration never left the National Front. They are still very much anchored in the past.

What is even worse, they stop at nothing. They even go as far as favouring the discourse of left-wing organisations whose sole purpose is to destroy a successful British National Party.

Of Resignations and Resignations

Looking at the range of organizations usually counted among those that are thought to be Nationalist alternatives, one organization in particular (and I will not mention it by name) seems to be in dire straits.

A prominent figure resigned in the middle of an Identity crisis created by working contacts with a left-wing magazine directed by a left-wing convicted criminal, contacts with Northern Ireland’s movements and doubts about incorporating former members of another political party that are seen as having conflicting interests created by present contractual working arrangements and by a non politically correct background.

We can see that all the aforementioned would constitute ‘stored seeds of trouble’ that could ruin the ‘clean image’ of the said organization. Those who want to be seen as ‘civilized option’ don’t want to be ‘polluted by right-wing elements’ that given their expertise could very well end up taking over the organization. If there ever was an identity crisis, this is it.

The next thing we might hear about might have to do with links with other political parties, including UKIP or the security establishment and this does not sound very promising for the said organization that some struggle to portray as an alternative to the British National Party.

Undoubtedly, this is a time for definitions. We see it at national level with the Conservatives wanting to be Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats still trying to decide where they are and the Labour Party cut in the middle between its Leadership and the Trade Union movement.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the issue of identity is being debated within the nationalist movement as a whole and some of the conclusions a prominent resigning member of the said organization arrives to would be strikingly similar to some of our own conclusions.

There is some sort of comfort linked to living in the past and many talk about the core vote without realising that the so called core vote actually amounts to percentages that would get very few people elected or none at all.

Somebody, who is very much stuck in the past, even said: “adaptation to changing circumstances is a gamble and we shouldn’t gamble because it would alienate the core vote”.

Personally, I think that adopting rational attitudes is not a gamble. Rational attitudes are an absolute necessity for anybody wanting to play a role in British politics. Ideological Purity based on anachronisms and images that the vast majority of the population reject is merely political suicide.

The said resigning figure of the said organization understood that the incorporation of elements of the past would simply transform the said organization into a carbon copy of things he and others do not want to be associated with.

We can turn this issue upside down and sideways and it would still be an issue of identity and identity is linked to public perception. If we are talking about change and about new options, we cannot be attached to old imagery.

Xenophobia, racism and the like are not merely words. Those of us who don’t want to be labelled need to understand that talking about change is not nearly enough. Res non verba (Facts and not merely words). This is not about core votes. This is about change to transform a political oddity into a rational organization able to play a real role in British politics.

At present, we have a ruling coalition. British politics has changed. It could well be the case that the next government will also be a coalition and that ruling coalitions become the new constant. If the bipolar system is finished and what we have is an ensemble of smaller parties, negotiation and adaptation will be the only way forward.

With the reduction of the number of Members of the House of Commons from 650 to 600, the struggle for votes will be ever more intense. If you combine this with fragmentation of mainstream political parties, you could see smaller political parties playing a greater role.

Baroness Flather: Polygamy, welfare benefits and an insidious silence

Many years ago, working for the Central Office of Information, a dependency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I presented a television programme about Baroness Shreela Flather, today’s Mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead, that incidentally was the first Asian woman member of the House of Lords.

Today, I read an article written by Shreela Flather in which she denounces abuses committed by some migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh that have transformed what she described as modern welfare state with noble ideals into a lucrative racket for claimants who lack any sense of social responsibility.

Baroness Flather adds that the subject has been avoided as a taboo subject for far too long because of sensitivities about the issue of race. As I said in Parliament, writes Baroness Flather, “there is growing wealth of evidence that the generosity of the welfare state encourages some Muslims from these two regions (Pakistan and Bangladesh) – along with plenty of white families – to produce ever larger families in order to claim extra payments and publicly-subsidized housing.”

Thanks to polygamy, indicates Baroness Flather, many women are being brought to Britain from the said countries and used to procreate children with the sole purpose of exploiting the welfare system that considers them as ‘single mothers’ because polygamy is not legally recognized in Britain.

She explains that one man can have several women with children, all claiming welfare benefits. What is more, Baroness Shreela Flather says that some time ago she discovered that in one street of a town in Yorkshire all residents are Pakistani women with children and there are no men living in the street.

Baroness Shreela Flather, first Asian female Member of the House of Lords, says ‘We cannot continue like this. The misuse of welfare among some Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others has to be challenged, for the practice seriously undermines the social contract upon which the British welfare system is based.”

Carlos Cortiglia