How 'out of touch' can the Tories get?

The Conservatives are so out of touch with the electorate.

Take this example:

"The Conservative Party in United Kingdom has endorsed a Ugandan, Mr Richard Ssemitego, to contest on the party’s ticket in the Eastbury councillorship race in Barking and Dagenham.

Mr Ssemitego’s candidature was announced last week at Bangladeshi Women Association Community Hall in Barking at a function attended by London Mayor, Mr Boris Johnson.

“The most frequent question I am being asked on my campaign trail is about immigration. English people are tired of emigrants in their country and they demand my party’s policy about immigration and yet I am one of them, it is a bit tricky to answer,” he told Daily Monitor on telephone from London yesterday.

Tight race
Mr Ssemitego,35 will tussle it out with the incumbent McDermott James Edward of the Labour Party, Mr Jeffrey Steed of the British National Party, Ms Challis Dianne Patricia, of the Liberal Democrat Party and Mr Mcllroy Ashley of the UK Independent Party.

In the 2006 elections, Mr McDermott garnered 965 votes in a race that attracted 11 contenders. Mr Ssemitego is currently a Project Manager with Residential Redrich Community Housing Limited in Ilford.

He was a campaigning manager for Vice President Prof. Gilbert Bukenya in Masuliita town in the 2006 Parliamentary elections.

Elections are slated for May 6 in all London Borough and local authorities. Fifty one councillors form Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council."

see the original article here:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/866386/-/wilkoq/-/

So it seems the Tory  “Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats” is operating at full steam, I wouldnt call Barking and Dagenham a safe seat now.

Read More

Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats

Conservatives plans to trick its grassroots activists into accepting ethnic candidates

The Conservative Party leadership has deliberately “tricked” — using that word — its grassroots activists into accepting ethnic candidates as part of a plan to force the Tories to mongrelise into a party dominated by Third World immigrants, a leaked strategy paper has revealed.

Entitled “Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats,” the six page document was drawn up in secret by Tory schools spokesman Michael Gove, one of David Cameron’s inner circle, and Dean Godson, a director of the Policy Exchange think tank.

The document says that “stealth” will have to be used to bring in ethnic candidates and stressing the importance of keeping “quiet” over the plans to actively discriminate against white males.

“Like a conjuror, we’ll get more applause if the audience cannot see exactly how the trick is performed,” the shocking document says.

The paper calls for white males to be put to the bottom of any candidate list despite openly admitting that there is no merit-related justification for the vicious anti-white racism.

“Most of the talented candidates on the list are white and male,” the paper says.

“The principal reason such people get selected for safe seats is because they tend to be the best on offer.”

The paper goes on to detail how the grassroots Tories are going to be tricked.

“The party has little direct leverage over associations, consisting of volunteers who guard their local autonomy jealously and value their ability to choose future MPs. Nevertheless not only can objections be overcome, they MUST be overcome,” the paper says, putting the word ‘must’ in capital letters.

“The clever approach is to maintain the illusion that a good cross-section of approved candidates is being offered.

“There are several reasons why the Party should not publicly proclaim the new methodology.

“The more that the profusion of women, black, Asian or gay candidates appears to be the result of spontaneous open-mindedness on the part of grassroots activists the greater will be the accolades.

“Most Tories loathe political correctness and positive discrimination. If one tries to be ‘in your face’ about the fact that positive discrimination is taking place activists are much more likely to rebel; a version of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, is called for.

“Yet another factor that should persuade us to do our good work by stealth is the fact our opponents don’t believe we have got a cat in hell’s chance of passing their test [for the selection of candidates]. It would be counterproductive to tip them off.”

Read More

Even the aliens are confused!

Read More

Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants

The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.
However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.

Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door ­policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.

Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.
The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a “driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural”.

However, the full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to “social objectives” had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted.

Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the “race card”. Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands.

Gordon Brown pledged to secure “British jobs for British workers” as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was “not racist” to discuss the issue.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.
Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.

“Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain,“ he said. “Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects?
“Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration.”

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, accused the Government of having a secret policy. “This shows that Labour’s open-door immigration policy was deliberate, and ministers should apologise,” he said. “This makes it all the more important that there is a proper independent inquiry in the origins of this policy and whether ministers have been deceiving people.”

Jack Straw, who was home secretary when the paper was drawn up, has adamantly denied any secret plot and insisted that he had been tough on immigration.
Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, said the policy changes introduced in the 1997-2001 Parliament toughened immigration rules.

“The reports confirm there is no evidence to back the idea there was an open-door policy,” he said. “The Government was criticised at the time for tightening the policy.”
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, will announce today moves to make it harder to earn citizenship.

Original article published by telegraph.co.uk

Read More