Nick Griffin is insane

A report drawn up by Equality and Human Rights Commission has confirmed that social housing does not favour migrants, a hot issue for the British National Party, and something that undoubtedly won them some favour by those who feel alienated and were drawn in by the lies purported by the far right.

Perhaps its going too far to suggest that these results will hurt the party, since its now clear that their policies were based on pure speculation and dubious figures given by supposedly non-partisan organisations such as migrantwatch (who haven’t said a word about these new reports yet).

But certainly some official statistics on the questions will have an impact.

If figures by an organisation like the EHRC – that are in the establishment so to speakdon’t do anything to win round those people who feel let down by the system and seek solace in fascists saying things that sound like they might be true on a bad day, then maybe reaction to Nick Griffin’s insane comments today will.

Nick Griffin, on the subject of Italy’s borders told BBC Parliament’s The Record Europe that sooner or later the only way to send migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa the message (that Griffin and his ilk don’t want them) is to sink the boats they’re on (oh, but its OK because he doesn’t support murdering them, he’ll throw “them a life raft [so] they can go back to Libya”).

He also said that Europe will have to close its borders sooner or later (remember he wants them closed now) or else the union will become the third world. If housing is anything to go by (pretty good thing to go by, to be honest) then “swamping” is not exactly imminent.


The curious week of chancellor Darling

Alistair Darling wants to cut the £175bn black hole in the public accounts by £50bn. So what’s he going to do about it?

In the midst of hard, cold economic misery, the chancellor threatens to freeze public sector pay. Even from supporting voices, such as Andrew Hutson from the Adam Smith Institute, its accepted that such a manoeuvre will save £5bn. A small price for such a deal, that affects people who, not only have done nothing to create the financial mess, but, are the most affected by it.

It has spurred on hardcore free-marketeers, who by and large support the move, as seen on the ASI website, to use this measure to their own advantage, seeing it as a way of shouting a huge told-you-so on the so-called lack of wealth creation in the public sector. For them, the public sector should stump up money since it doesn’t create as much money, and, as they will point out, is quite happy just to receive it.

Or, as Hutson states, “A freeze in pay would send out messages that the public sector needs to really earn our money rather than automatically receiving it.”

But this should stick uncomfortably in the throats of people who remember how much was provided by the government to bail out banks (which I can say with some certainty is most of us).

This brings us on to what Darling will not be doing. As the Guardian reports tonight “He (Darling) made no mention of capping bankers’ pay despite telling MPs that “irresponsible pay practices made banks take too much risk”.” And as Vince Cable said: “This [white] paper will be greeted with a sigh of relief in the City since it marks a return to ‘business as usual’.”

Another matter that Darling will not be seeing to is some severe cases of tax evasion. As Michael Meacher MP noted tonight his attempt to start a debate on tax avoidance of the super-rich was turned away by the speaker on the grounds that “the effect of the new clause would be to increase taxation”.

As Meacher further notes;

“The totality of tax avoided by super-rich individuals and big corporations has been estimated by independent research at some £25bn a year, and even by the Treasury at up to £13bn a year.”

That liberal estimate, and even the conservative one, is a substantial amount more than the £5bn that Darling wants to cut from public sector pay.

So Darling’s proposals will be celebrated by free-marketeers and bankers who will laugh off the possibility of a mere new Council for Financial Stability, and who always felt that public sector workers were getting let off anyway.

And, as Dan Roberts pointed out today;

“Appeasing the vested interests of the City will only lead to a repeat of past cycles of financial boom and bust. What is odd is it took a Tory shadow chancellor to realise this.”

Curious indeed…