WATCH: Nigel Farage comes a cropper at the hands of LBC’s James O’Brien

Nigel Farage was interviewed by LBC Radio’s James O’Brien today: it didn’t go well for the Ukip leader. Watch here as he’s asked about the racist comments of elected Ukip representatives, the extremist views of its far-right European allies, its mis-use of dodgy stats to whip-up immigration fears, and its refusal to sign up for an audit of its MEPs’ expenses…

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in YouTube.


  • Jayne Mansfield 16th May '14 - 2:42pm

    Well done James O’Brien. At last an interviewer who has pinned Nigel Farage down on his statements and refused to be diverted from his quest.

  • He is a welcome breath of fresh air as he comes on straight after the uber-right wing Nick Ferrari

  • While some parts were just the same as I have seen before, James O’Brien was also great on Nigel’s own children speaking German, and asking Nigel to explain the difference between German and Rumanian immigrants. Hopefully TV journalist will watch this and point out the same problem with Nigel’s statistics regarding children having English as a second language and asking him the difference between immigrants from different European countries.

  • Wow, what a car crash interview!

    I forecast it will be absolutely decisive and will lose the election for UKIP. At last the media has something to get its teeth into, to prove to UKIP’s voters just how ridiculous and racist Nigel is. With his German wife. Did you know his wife was German?

    At long last something will stick to the teflon politican. This will prove the turning point in the campaign, definitely the turning point. I can’t wait till the next poll to see the impact on UKIP’s vote share because I think interviews like this totally restore the broken trust between the media, the main parties, and the disenfranchised, ignored section of the electorate who were going to vote UKIP, but now will have seen the light.

  • Simon, I wish you were right but I fear this will shore up those that believe the ‘they’re all out to get us’ spin.

  • @MartinB: That would include simon. (He’s being facetious.)

  • Richard Dean 16th May '14 - 8:06pm

    I agree with MartinB. I watched the shorter version on the Guardian website – the last few minutes I think – and Farage did get some points across which will have made sense to many in the electorate, including

    > UKIP on 16% in BME voters, more than Tory and Libdem together. Is this true?
    > 40% voters think UKIP is racist – but that’s good for UKIP if 40% of voters are racist!
    > “Controlling the quantity and quality of people that come into your country is a primary duty of government, and we cannot do it as members of the EU”

    The last point in particular has impact; how can we counter it? In my opinion he starts with something that is a mess but will be difficult to argue against, but I happen to think that control is actually easier if we are members of the EU.

  • Richard Dean 16th May '14 - 8:07pm
  • Graham Evans 16th May '14 - 8:29pm

    Let us suppose that UKIP does get 34% of the vote on 22 May, which one opinion poll suggests might be the case. What that actually means is that 64% will not have supported the Party. We are so obsessed with our FPTP electoral system, in which winner takes all, that we think that 34% of the electorate somehow speak for the whole country. They do not.

  • Richard Dean 16th May '14 - 8:39pm

    @Graham Evans. And what if LibDems get 8% ?

  • It only Nick Clegg had tackled Farage with half James O’brian’s brevity, wit and grasp of facts .

  • Biut Graham, the elections are under a form of PR.

  • Simon Enefer 17th May '14 - 3:15am

    I am sorry but the mainstream parties and the media elite just don’t get it, anywhere! Be it the UK, the rest of Europe and even in the US, mass immigration has been ignored by elites leading to real suffering amongst the working class and increased racial tensions. Lets look at the list of “benefits”

    1) Economic benefits: Their are none. UK productivity has stalled as migrant cheap labor has allowed businesses to pay starvation wages and avoid increasing business efficiency. What evidence is their for this, well look at in work tax credits that have grown to make up the second largest item in the benefit budget (After pensions) at £41bn. The law of Supply and Demand is about as close as economics gets to a scientific principle, so why when Globalization is already impacting wages increase the supply of labor by allowing mass immigration?

    2) Multiculturalism: Visit any of a number of areas in the UK, Europe or the US and see how little interaction their is between migrants and native communities. The result has been communal violence in the UK, France, Sweden, Greece etc. No matter the policy deployed by the state, these levels of mass immigration only lead to ghettoization, alienation and violence.

    3) NHS and caring Professions need migrant workers: How can it be right for the sixth richest country in the world to recruit health professionals, trained at great expense, from third world countries, Maybe those countries would sooner retain those Doctors and Nurses and forgo UK aid? If the UK needs more Doctors, nurses carers etc then let us train them and pay them enough to retain them. Any other approach is amoral, and given the huge UK aid budget borders on the insane!

    4) Immigration is good because migrants are entrepreneurial: Yes that can be true, but which country needs those ambitious people more, the UK or Ethiopia, the US or Mexico? Reforming nations requires ambitious people, where would India have been if Gandhi had decide that he would better serve his family if he went into chambers in the UK? Would India be the worlds largest democracy or another failed state.

    Mass immigration is immoral, it benefits neither the host country or the country that loses its best and brightest. Immigration on this scale has allowed people trafficking to become more profitable than the drugs trade and slavery to become a growing industry from the UK to Qatar. I have never voted Lib Dem but had always thought that yours was a moral party. Put aside your PC views for a moment and consider the real effects of this policy on the poorest nations and the less educated or fortunate of your fellow citizens.

  • Charles Rothwell 17th May '14 - 7:58am

    Richard Dean: If we get “8%” we (just like Labour and the Tories) take it on the nose and do all we possibly can to convince the electorate that we “get it”and have learnt from the experience, namely learnt that millions of voters in England (because that it what “UKIP” is, in reality the “English Isolationist Party”, in exactly the same way as the so-called ‘English Democrats’) feel left out of/disregarded by the system and that for years Whitehall/Westminster have failed to consult them on issues which are vital to them, such as the effects of globalisation, EU enlargement, immigration, the massive growth in income inequality distribution in this country, the continued over-burdening (and stupid reforms) of the NHS etc etc. and left the field free to the perversions of the popular press. EIP is the symptom of all this and the crucial thing is to make the correct diagnosis in time for the elections which (as voters know full well*) are the crucial ones (in contrast to the opportunity to ‘let off steam’ without any real consequences for them which the EP elections* have now come to be for millions across the whole of Europe), namely in May 2015. (*Review of the purpose and method for EP elections also need to be integral components of the complete reassessment of the purpose, structures and operations of the EU as well).

  • Fair play to James O’Brien, that was impressive.

  • Most people who plan to vote UKIP are not very interested in their policies, how could they be they keep changing them. There main selling point is they are not “politicians” and are certainly not the Conservative/LibDems/Labour. The main parties seem to be clueless about the level of distrust and plain anger they generate in a large section of the electorate and other parties will do well off this in the EU elections. I think UKIP will do well, but also the Greens on the back of this expression of anger at the established parties. It basically a F you vote and the LibDem MEP’s are likely to be the ones who suffer the worst.

  • @ Charles R

    “If we get “8%” we (just like Labour and the Tories) take it on the nose and do all we possibly can to convince the electorate that we “get it”and have learnt from the experience, namely learnt that millions of voters in England … feel left out of/disregarded by the system and that for years Whitehall/Westminster have failed to consult them”

    How are you going to do that? You are thoughtless Euro Enthusiasts, believe in the free movement of labour, globalisation, and multiculturalism. You don’t speak to the section of the electorate which vehemently opposes all those things, and never will.

    Graham Evans say that 64% of the electorate opposes UKIP. By the same reasoning 92% oppose the Lib Dems.

    Your leadership have become addicted to red boxes and the ministerial cars. The Lib Dems have lost their soul, I am sorry to say and the voters have noticed…

  • @Simon – were the electorate as exercised about this as you are, UKIP or comaparable parties would have had a n overall majority years ago. Instead they haven’t a seat in Westminister and will struggle to get one.

    That’s the electorates’ decision whether you like it or not.

  • SIMON BANKS 17th May '14 - 4:40pm

    Simon Enefer:

    Out of that list of prejudices, I’ll just pick one. I’ve lived in a highly multicultural area and there was plenty of interaction. But you wouldn’t notice that, Simon.

  • Simon Enefer makes some interesting points and we should try to accept that the government should be doing things to reduce the number of immigrants, while recognising that we can’t do anything about free movement of labour within the EU. We are never going to persuade people that allowing a large number of immigrants into the country benefits them. As I have posted before each immigrant into the country has a displacement cost on those who are here. The government should take action to remove these costs, by achieving full employment and wiping out the housing shortage.

    Maybe there are policies that could reduce the demand for immigrant labour. The government should identify which jobs most new immigrants do. If they are low skilled, low paid jobs then they should subsidise the employer so higher wages can be paid to employ non-immigrants who are no in employment. If they are skilled jobs then the government should pay people to get those skills and if necessary pay employers to provide the experience needed. If Simon is correct the government is already subsidising wages to the tune of £41bn. A start would be increasing the minimum wage to restore its loss of real value.

  • @ Simon Banks

    “Out of that list of prejudices, I’ll just pick one. I’ve lived in a highly multicultural area and there was plenty of interaction. But you wouldn’t notice that, Simon.”

    As always a personal insult. Anyone who disagrees with the dogma is “prejudiced.” You have no arguments, you have lost the debate, all that is left for you is the ad hominem.

    You should come visit my son’s school. In less than five years it has gone from 70% “white British” to 30% because of “white flight.”

    In large parts of the country we don’t have “interraction” we have ghettoisation.

    If that isn’t true of your area then you are fortunate. Bully for you.

  • I live in a highly multi- cultural area and am happy to do so. People like Simon Enefer are saying “Stop the world – I want to get off!”. It is not a a question of whether or not we need immigration (albeit in an ageing and low birthrate country we in fact do) it is the fact that some considerable time ago, as communications and human ingenuity and aspiration increased, our world stopped being a planet of virtually discrete countries whose peoples stayed dutifully within their own borders unless adventurers forced themselves upon other countries to build empires or slavemasters turned up and trafficked some of them away. People now want to see and in many cases to settle elsewhere. This phenomenon has to be managed and that is not always easy but it will not be achieved by trying like Canute’s courtiers to pretend it can be stopped or reversed. I am proud to live in a country whose people in general are doing their best to accommodate the new arrivals. As for the right of freedom of movement within the EU in particular, the indications so far are that those who come in tend to be balanced more or less by those who move out.

    Brilliant interview by James O’Brien, especially his point that if Farage had deigned to speak to any of the people in his railway carriage they would probably have replied in perfectly good English.

  • @ Paul R

    “That’s the electorates’ decision whether you like it or not.”

    The whole point, which you miss in quite spectacular fashion, is that the three main parties have NO electoral mandate for mass immigration.

    It was never put to the electorate, if it had been they would have said no.

    No-one voted for this. Your argument is a logical fallacy, post propter hoc.

  • @ Denis – ‘People like Simon Enefer are saying “Stop the world – I want to get off!”.’

    No people like Simon Enefer are experiencing problems because of immigration. While his point about multiculturalism may not be the experience of most Liberal Democrats it is an experience for some people and so should not be rejected. We have to accept that some people do see ghettoization. My town doesn’t have this problem but does have a large number of new immigrants in it. I do remember not taking on board the concerns of a voter who told be Poles were getting the new houses that were being built near me. She may have been correct that lots of Poles were moving in there, but wrong that they were given social housing when long term residents of the town in the same circumstances were not. However because Poles were living in those houses some people who might have been able to live in them still didn’t have a home. The answer isn’t to dismiss the issue, but provide enough houses so both the Pole and the long term resident of the town can both have a home of their own. At the time I didn’t recognise this but I do now and wish that if I was canvassing now I could say, well the Liberal Democrats would invest millions in building all the homes needed.

  • I wouldn’t put too much store in this broadcast. You have a clearly hostile interviewer and most party leaders are prone to get a little agitated under protracted aggressive questioning.

    Evidenced based policy is the determinant of Liberal Democrat policy and there was a detailed policy paper debated and adopted at spring conference to this end Making Migration Work for Britain.

    The paper sets out the Lib Dems’ programme for government, During the debate on the paper it was noted that the plan to require jobseekers to learn English, reflected what migrants themselves said i.e. English was the biggest resource they needed. On asylum seekers having to look for work after six months, this will just put them in the same position as other people getting benefit.

  • Richard Dean 17th May '14 - 7:34pm

    Net migration of something like 200,000 per year is certainly difficult to handle in the short term – it’s one new large town or small city every year, and how many new schools, hospitals, etc? And it really doesn’t look sustainable in the long term.

    But Making Migration Work for Britain appears to miss the point entirely. The summary says that LibDem’s highest priorities are to rebuild trust and give confidence. As such I doubt whether the remaining 72 pages are worth reading. At 200,000 a year, our highest priority has to be to work out whether this is really right and good, and if not we need to work out how to control it.

    LibDems’ highest priority in this area should be to find some facts. They’re hard to find because few people go past the hysteria-generating “mass immigration”, and even fewer get past their own pre-judgments. Simon Enefer is at least trying, though to my mind he is over-simplifying in a way that damages rather than helps the people of the UK.

  • @ Richard Dean

    “LibDems’ highest priority in this area should be to find some facts.”

    The “facts” are in the 2011 Census. We could wait until 2021 (if they ever hold another Census, that seems to be in doubt) or we could take some steps to restrict immigration.

    But we can’t because of free movement of labour. Which your party supports unquestioningly and unequivocally.

  • @ Almaric

    “No people like Simon Enefer are experiencing problems because of immigration. While his point about multiculturalism may not be the experience of most Liberal Democrats it is an experience for some people and so should not be rejected. We have to accept that some people do see ghettoization.”

    The Cantle Report on ghettoisation was published in 2001. Do you know what is depressing? It has just got worse…

    “Parallel lives?” Tell that to a gap year Jihadi…

  • Richard Dean 17th May '14 - 9:52pm

    No, the facts aren’t there at all, because the census just counts people, not their interactions. To check out the things you complain about – lack of integration, loss of jobs, etc – we need to look at quite different things.

    At the moment, the facts about these things are just not available to anyone. You don’t have them, and I don’t have them. No-one has them. For instance, there are plenty of places where integration has gone well, as well as places that it hasn’t. But how well, how badly, in what ways, and from what causes?

    After the facts have been determined, including facts about what people really want, then appropriate objectives can be identified and policies to achieve them can be developed. No-one has gone through this process without bias, and that is what is preventing progress on the issues.

  • @Simon – The electorate’s choice I was referring to it in my post is the clear failure of the electorate to elect UKIP to Westminister much less give them an overall majority.

    Second, large scale immigration has been going on in the UK since at least the 50s. That was the decisions of Westminster who voted for it – it didn’t “just happen”. If the electorate return those parties to parliament in election after election, it is nonsense to claim the electorate didn’t understand the immigration policies as they had multiple elections to make their displeasure felt if they so chose.

    Using your standard, presumably the electorate were equally opposed to, let’s say, the defence of the UK or the NHS. Those “out of touch” politicians in Westminister insisted on defending the UK even though the electorate just wanted the country to be invaded, right? 🙂

  • Second, large scale immigration has been going on in the UK since at least the 50s. That was the decisions of Westminster who voted for it – it didn’t “just happen”.

    I don’t want to be rude, but your post reveals an extraordinary ignorance of the immigration policy of the 50’s. No-one voted for it, then, because anyone who immigrated from what we now term the “Commonwealth”were quite entitled to do so, as they were citizens of the same Empire.

    It absolutely did “just happen” in the 50’s. There was a “free market of labour” in those days too.

    Can I make a suggestion? Why don’t you read up on this subject before attempting to offer an opinion??

  • @ Richard

    “No, the facts aren’t there at all, because the census just counts people, not their interactions.”

    The Census tells the facts right enough. The English are becoming a minority in England. It will become a reality in either our lifetimes, or that of our children.

    The difference is that you don’t care and I do.

  • Richard Dean 18th May '14 - 1:19am

    That’s not what the census says at all!

  • @ Richard Dean – “At the moment, the facts about these things are just not available to anyone.”

    “Britain, despite its status as one of the richest economies and one of the most diverse societies in the world, is still a place of inequality, exclusion and isolation. Segregation – residentially, socially, within schools and in the workplace – seems to be growing. Extremism, both political and religious, is on the rise as people become disillusioned and disconnected.”

    And “Half of all our migrants arrived in the last generation and a third have come in the last decade. People come from a wider range of countries than ever before and new migrants often face difficulties accessing English language classes, lack practical knowledge about the UK, can face public hostility and lack opportunities to meet local people.”

    Perhaps some people like the Centre for Social Relations (the new name for the Institute of Community Cohesion) do have the facts.

    @ Paul R – I believe that the immigrants of the 1950’s were often encouraged to come here because we had full employment but still had jobs to do. While I understand there was a lot of discrimination and racism at the time, I don’t believe there was large scale concerns about them being employed while large numbers of non-immigrants were unemployed or of them being housed while a large number of non-immigrants couldn’t find somewhere to live. It is only since the 1970s and the ending of governments pursuing policies for full employment and the public sector no longer building enough houses to meet demand that these issues are now with us.

    People often say than England or Britain has a history of integrating new sets of immigrants. However they were smaller in number than the current ones. I believe that after the Second World War there were “lots” of Polish people who settled here. Their number was a lot smaller than the number that came with EU enlargement, which might be a reason why people were more concerned about the recent migrant and were not concerned about the earlier one. If we look back to Irish migration to Britain, it look a long time for them all to be fully integrated into the native population. My grandmother was mostly integrated and it was her grandparents who had migrated here, but she was still aware of her cultural difference from her husband.

    With regard to the census data the Black Caribbean group percentage has stayed the same, while the Indian and Pakistani percentages have increased by a fifth and a fourth and the mixed group has nearly doubled. I am not sure what this says about integration. Non-British Isles White had increased by more than half while the British Isles White were reduced to 80.5%.

  • Richard Dean 18th May '14 - 3:00am

    A while ago we used to have the “facts” of a matter described by one interviewee in the news, followed a short while later by the “true facts” as described by an interviewee for the other side! I wonder how this team’s demographic profile might influence the “facts” that they see? …

  • Returning to the subject of this thread we don’t have an opinion poll to gauge reaction although Thursday will come soon enough. But the Indy has an online poll entitled with a laudable lack of bias Has Farage lost it? Which has the same sort of sample size.

    Check it out!

    Another thought, have you considered what would be the effect of the polls underestimating the UKIP vote? Remember the “shy Tories?”

  • Check out another interesting poll on Guido’s blog showing that Nice is the only party leader with a positive rating.

    (Taken before the “car crash” I/v which we know will turn the whole campaign round for the establishment… )

    Gotta love the open letter to the Telegraph, too. Vote LibLabCon to get a Roma criminal living next door. Too funny.

  • Surprised that Nick Robinson’s I/v with Nige hasn’t hit ldv yet. No doubt it will get its own thread when someone gets round to it.

    Same old, same old I am afraid. The Establishment (and nothing is more establishment than the BBC) can’t help itself. It started the campaign with cries of waacist. waacist and will end it so. In the middle it wondered as to the efficacy of the tactic, but what was the alternative? Certainly not discussing the issues. So we have gone full circle.

  • Jayne Mansfield 19th May '14 - 5:52pm

    @ Simon,
    ‘Plain speaking’ works both ways. I am old enough to remember when immigrants from the commonwealth were stereotyped and unscrupulous politicians warned that voting for a particular party might lead to them moving in as neighbours. I was prepared to give Ukip the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. I know exactly what sort of party Ukip is and the sort of people it attracts.

  • Paul in Twickenham 19th May '14 - 6:57pm

    @Jayne Mansfield – yes, indeed. Mr Farage all but said “if you want a Romanian for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour”. There is a real debate to be had about immigration if only we can cut through the fog of dubious statistics on all sides but that was an appeal to the basest of motives.

  • @ Jayne M

    “I was prepared to give Ukip the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. I know exactly what sort of party Ukip is and the sort of people it attracts.”

    You seem a nice person, and I don’t have a problem with this comment, it is of course totally your right to feel that way.

    What I think you and the rest of the establishment need to appreciate, however, is that we Kippers couldn’t give a toss whether you are going to give us the “benefit of the doubt” any longer.

    We don’t need your approval or moral approbation. We believe that uncontrolled immigration has been a disaster for our country and needs to stop.

    And we have the majority of the country behind us. Drill down into the polls.

    So you Lib Dems can get with the programme, or change the electorate, or fade into oblivion, that really is up to you.

  • Jayne Mansfield 19th May '14 - 9:23pm

    @ Simon,
    Perhaps you should define what you mean by ‘establishment’, Simon. Describing me as a member made me chortle.

    I take it you don’t think Nigel Farage and his merry band of ex right wing tories as the ‘establishment’. It seems to me that the ‘establishment’ is a lazy label for anyone who disagrees with public school educated wealthy Ukip leadership and their funders.

    What I do know, is that those of my acquaintance who are concerned about immigration but do not hold racist beliefs are not voting Ukip.

  • @ Jayne

    If you are concerned about immigration and are not racist you vote UKIP. Racist and there is the BNP.

    The other parties have done nothing to control it and will do nothing. They are the problem not the solution. If your friends vote Tory, ask them how well Cameron’s net target pledge is going? We exclude brilliant scientists and allow Roma gangsters in willy nilly.

  • Jayne Mansfield 20th May '14 - 8:52am

    @ Simon,
    It is not true that the other parties have done nothing to control immigration.

    Do you really think that people whether they vote for Nige and the equivalent of the old Tory Monday club are seen as fit people to make decisions on behalf of Briton?

    Ukip add to the merriment of the nation, and they are doing really good work in persuading people to vote to remain in the EU. Paradoxical but true – look at the polls.

  • @ Jayne

    It is not true that the other parties have done nothing to control immigration.

    Maybe not in your version of reality, but that isn’t going to the polls the day after tomorrow.

    Do you really think that people whether they vote for Nige and the equivalent of the old Tory Monday club are seen as fit people to make decisions on behalf of Briton? (Sic)

    Maybe not, but isn’t it the utmost indictment of the entire political class that so many people are going to vote for them?

    Ukip add to the merriment of the nation, and they are doing really good work in persuading people to vote to remain in the EU. Paradoxical but true – look at the polls.

    UKIP are doing a great job at forcing a referendum, which is our major strategy. We are prepared to leave it to the people to decide, in or out. YOUR party refuses to allow that choice, why would that be so if what you say above is true?

  • @ Jayne

    You asked me to define “The Establishment.” Put simply it is our rulers, those with political and economic and cultural power.

    The party you support is part of a Coalition Administration and your party leader is Deputy Prime Minister. That makes YOU part of the Establishment.

  • Jayne
    I will be voting this Thursday in the Yorkshire and Humber area.Lib Dem number1 Edward Mcmillan-Scott is ex tory the UKIP number 1 is Jane Collins who is ex labour as is Mike Hookem the number 3 candidate. Number 2 is Amjad Bashir who may be ex Tory. The Lib Dem number 2 and 3 are white male. I don’t see your how your description of UKIP and the old Tory Monday club fits in my area. Could you explain your reasoning. Thanks

  • Don’t know about you, but I am starting to get bored with this election, and I am a political junkie.

    It is all over bar the shouting now, praise be. The postal votes are in, and the MSM are going through the motions till the day after tomorrow Anyone see Paxman’s interview of Nige last night? Very tame, in fact he almost seemed in awe of him and his achievement in taking this ragamuffin party so far.

    Nick Robinson did his best yesterday, but his problem was that he couldn’t find anyone to oppose Nige and be interviewed. Well he found a couple. Everyone else was high fiving and glad handing Nige for the cameras. Awkward!

    After the boredom and vituperation of a charmless campaign we get to enjoy the rewards. After Thursday, starting with the local elections, and running all through the weekend till Sunday night is going to be political gold. A delight to drink in the chagrin, and humiliation and infighting as the political and media elite turn on themselves.

  • Jayne Mansfield 20th May '14 - 10:27am

    @ Simon,
    Political parties select candidates and we elect our rulers as you call them. They hold power and authority only for as long as we the electorate continue to vote them into those positions.

    Given that your party hopes to replace them as the ‘establishment’ I fail to see why you use the term in such a derogatory manner, especially as so many seems to have been quite happy members of what you call the ‘establishment’ for so many years.

    I have the choice to vote for Mike Nattrass’, An Independence from Europe’, party on Thursday. Wouldn’t he the better choice for those who wish to vote against the ‘establishment’ including your own?

  • @ Jayne

    I have changed my mind! You were right all along, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

    Does that allow me to post? Because everything I have written this afternoon in honest response to your posts has been blue pencilled…

  • Simon Enefer 29th May '14 - 5:34pm

    Thanks for many of the reasoned and polite comments on my earlier remarks.

    To clarify a few things.

    I have lived in central London for 16 years near Baker Street station, so I have”experienced” a more multicultural neighborhood than most people on this site. This included the “multicultural” experience of hearing the Edgware Road bomb detonate on 7/7 , the joy of encountering Abu Hamza several times when he blocked traffic whilst living in Finsbury Park (1994-98),

    I would also mention a march outside my flat by at least 1,000 Muslim extremist shouting slogans calling for Sharia law and the Caliphate (Not very sensitive of them given the location). I actually spent a good fifteen minutes talking to one tof the marchers, a polite, well educated pharmacist of Asian extraction who was part of the march, He assured me that the UK would be part of the Caliphate and that Sharia law would be a “Great thing” for the UK. A little to multicultural for my taste.

    As for “Political Parties acting on immigration” this is nonsense. This issue has been not just been ignored across Europe and the US, but the debate has actively been suppressed in the media and by all the main political parties using the charge of racism as a default defense to avoid discussing it. To pretend otherwise is not intellectually honest. Many steps could have been taken if the political will had been their :

    1) changing the benefits system to a contributory one (Like other EU countries like Spain) to prevent benefit tourism (Easy to do, just say it is and perfectly legal under EU law)

    2) Enforcing the provisions of the UN Charter on asylum that requires asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. This would have allowed Songatte refugees to have their biometric taken and then allow the UK to return them to France. If you get the chance, read the original treaty, written after WW2 and you will see how much its original objectives are being abused.

    3) Establish effective border monitoring by extracting data directly from ticket information collected by airlines and ferry companies (The US already does this from data collected across the EU directly from the companies involved). All current migration data is guesstimated rather than measured and given historical experience probable substantially underestimates numbers (See US and Spanish amnesties)

    I do not want to “Stop the World -I want to get off” I just know that ignoring mass migration is a mistake for all involved, for this country, for the migrants country and for the majority of the migrants themselves. If you think I am wrong then look at the unemployment statistics for ethnic minorities in the UK and elsewhere in the EU. Also consider how little progress countries with large migrant communities have made over the last sixty years – for example in the 1950 South Korea was poor than all African countries – despite many enjoying great economic benefits from energy and mineral wealth. This is despite the remittances that these migrants send back to their mother countries. A further note on remittances is that estimates of yearly remittances from the UK ($15bn) (The third largest in the World after the US and Saudi Arabia) wipe out any “economic” benefit from migration to the UK since 2004!

    Ending mass migration will force corrupt and backward countries to change as with no escape route their ambitious citizens will force them to change, in much the same way that our own feudal society was forced to change as labor increased in value and power. It will also save thousands of lives, which are lost as untold thousands drown in the Mediterranean or die of thirst in the Sahara. It would also end people trafficking, now the largest source of revenue for organized crime. Objectives that any sane person would want to achieve (And I believe Lib-Dems are sane, even if that makes me a minority).

  • Peter Barnes 19th Aug '14 - 10:08pm

    I’m 69 years old and during the last 20 years I’ve seen the culture, the heart and the way of life of this wonderfully unique nation given away to anybody that can borrow the bus fare to come here. Of course some indigenous peoples were paid to languish unemployed by the last Labour government. Of course many immigrants have contributed to this nation but we have become too immigrant dependent particularly within the NHS. We live in an island of finite size, our precious countryside is being built upon to accommodate newcomers…. a new home every 15 minutes, never mind our own young people looking to start a family and have an affordable home. Crowded roads, hospitals, schools, transport system, loss of culture, we are the most crowded nation in Europe… that can’t be good. This madness has to stop. The UK must adopt an immigration policy similar to the Australian model. The UK Independence Party have been vilified for speaking the truth by half wits like Clegg but unless we face up the problem .. gawd ‘elp us. English people and the good folk that have settled here in recent years will know exactly what I mean. Wish you well.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David Blake
    @Paul Reynolds In the list of abbreviations, it gives 'dir' as director and 'cons' as consultant/consultancy. Does that fit? Myself I think it's easier to gi...
  • Mary Fulton
    The police forces should certainly apologise for actions against the LGTB+ community in England and Wales since 1967 (and since 1980 in Scotland and 1982 in Nor...
  • Alex Macfie
    Remember that ordinary voters are typically not partisan ideologues. In the Kennedy years we were able to appeal to younger voters with a radical agenda but wit...
  • Robin Stafford
    For those interested in health and the NHS, Roy Lilley's blog is worth a look. A strong supporter of the NHS thought not uncritical. https://myemail-api.cons...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Simon R, Yes well done! :-) It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment. I usually have difficulty in persuading contributors to this site to think in ter...