• Missing the Point: Oldham West and Royton.


    The result:

    Jim McMahon 17,209 LABOUR (62.1%)
    John Bickley 6,487 UKIP (23.4%)
    James Daly 2,596 CONSERVATIVE (9.4%)
    Jane Brophy 1,024 LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (3.7%)
    Simeon Hart 249 GREEN (0.9%)
    Sir Oink-A-Lot 141 LOONY (0.5%)

    There has been much satisfaction in Labour’s ranks about their candidate’s victory in what is and should be regarded as a safe Labour seat. This has been characteristically reported by the Guardian Newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/04/labour-sweep-to-conclusive-victory-in-oldham-byelection?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+Charity+appeal+041215&utm_term=141412&subid=15907465&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
    What the Guardian and most of the left wing commentariat FAIL to mention are several worrying and glaring “happenings” that have occurred throughout the campaign.

    Let us remind ourselves of one FACT: The constituency of Oldham West and Royton is in Lancashire and also within the boundaries of the County Palatine of Lancaster, the erstwhile territory of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, KG of the Royal House of Plantagenet.

    Looking at the image at the head of today’s article however one would find this hard to believe!

    Of this image we refer you Dear Reader to the following recent article in the Metro: http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/01/labour-faced-with-sexism-row-again-after-men-and-women-were-segregated-at-asian-rally-5536791/
    This taken from the BBC website: Then we have Nigel Farage’s full justified concerns about the election result itself. UKIP is to make a formal complaint about what it claims was evidence of electoral fraud in the Oldham West and Royton by-election. The party, which came second to Labour, claims people had turned up at polling stations with “bundles of postal votes” and in some areas people had voted almost exclusively voted for Labour. Leader Nigel Farage said there “were things that should not be happening.” But Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson said it sounded like “sour grapes”. Mr Farage said Oldham’s Asian population had voted for Labour in large numbers, even though, he claimed some did not speak English but were signed up for postal votes. He claimed to have seen ballot boxes in which “99% of the votes were for Labour” and “this does not seem to be consistent with modern liberal democracy.” Mr Farage said that while Oldham West and Royton was a “safe” Labour seat, the result was still the “most shocking” that he had witnessed in all his years of campaigning. “Some very odd things happened. There was a 15% increase in the number of postal votes yesterday and stories of practices that should not be happening in a modern democracy.” He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the party had seen some ballot boxes where 99% of the votes were for Labour and this “does not seem to be consistent with modern liberal democracy. We will file a formal complaint against the abuses that our people saw yesterday,” he said. “Some of the things we’ve seen before in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets I have reason to believe were happening in Oldham yesterday”. He added: “It means that in some of these seats where people don’t speak English but they are signed up for postal votes effectively the electoral process is now dead”. Herewith the BBC online report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35004544

    British Gazette Comment: Firstly, this organ sends is congratulations and commiserations not only to John Bickley but to all those “Kippers” who put so much effort in to the campaign. Well Done! We would also like to send our thanks to the comical and good hearted fellow, Sir Oink-A-Lot of the Official Monster raving Loony Party and for the porcine references. Why? Because quite frankly, the whole electoral process and the campaign in Oldham West and Royton stank to High Heaven!

    Now, many disappointed and angry “Kippers” will be turning their anger on the victorious Labour Party both for the blatant gender segregation at the rally and also the postal vote situation.

    This however would – like the left wing Guardian commentariat – be to miss the point!

    Let us fact a FACT: The Labour Party was NOT the instigator of these practises that have caused so much concern. Labour is merely the BENEFICIARY of them. It is MOST IMPORTANT for people to realise this.

    Because of the common language, much of the political lexicography we use comes from across the Atlantic. One well known and used phrase is that of “lend us your vote” – which is of course a recognition by the candidate and their party that the voter merely lends their support and is an acknowledgement that the support can be withdrawn.

    What we have witnessed in Oldham West and Royton is something this organ has drawn it’s Readers attention to in previous articles: the change in the social make-up of the society in this country. The reason why the image at the top of the article appears incongruous to many is that it seems alien and contrary to the way the Reader and their family and friends conduct themselves. To the conservative Muslim audience at that rally they were doing for them what was normal and comfortable. Had they been dragooned by Labour Party activists into sitting as an Anglo-Saxon audience would have done these Asian Muslims would have felt uncomfortable and they would have (quite reasonably in those circumstances) protested. They would point out that in a free society people can sit where they chose and also wear what they choose (consistent of course with public decency).

    What concerns this organ has with the image is this: What happened or what might have happened had a non Muslim Anglo-Saxon couple (male/female) had attended what to all intents and purposes was a PUBLIC MEETING? Had the couple had done what most non Muslim Anglo-Saxons couples do in the 21st century – sit together either with the female side or the male side – what was or would have been the reaction of the audience and those organising the meeting?

    You see this is the FUNDAMENTAL question governing all of this and associated questions about wearing the hijab and the burka. It is NOT about the right to wear the hijab or buka. It is about the right NOT to wear the hijab or burka. Thus would the non Muslim Anglo-Saxon couple have been allowed to sit together or would they have been asked/encourage to adopt the gender segregation policy with which the majority at that meeting were comfortable with.

    Now at this point many Liberal minded folk would like to draw your Editor’s attention to the well known phrase, “When in Rome…….”

    But then that is the point we are making. We are not in Rome – or in this case Islamabad! We are in Lancashire!

    Of course the much more serious issue is that or postal votes.
    Again, many “Kippers” will lay responsibility for this at Dear Comrade Corbyn. As if the poor man has not got enough troubles! Again, we repeat that it is important to understand that Labour is merely the BENEFICIARY of this. NOT the instigator.

    In the “small c” conservative South Asian Muslim society the system whereby heads of families and the so called “community leaders” come together to collectively organise, distribute and enact collective postal voting to ensure that the votes go to the candidate of their collective choosing IS THE NORM! This is the way voting in done! Get used to it!

    What this means of course is that voter turnout become absolutely crucial! As the South Asian Muslim population grows in absolute terms (and also relative terms to the non Muslim Anglo-Saxon and other communities), this will become an increasingly important factor.

    It is a well known FACT across the democratic world that there are two aspects of winning an election. One in to persuade voters to either vote again for your candidate or switch their vote to your candidate. The other is described as “getting your vote out” – that is to say, get those voters likely to vote for your party to vote to a greater extent that your competitors. In this regard, the Tories have consistently had an advantage over Labour for middle class voters tend to vote more than do working class voters. It is also the case that older voters (across the social spectrum) vote more than young voters.

    Therefore the implication of this practice (Asian postal votes) is obvious. Very high voter turnout for those particular voters! This of course will serve to magnify the effects of this practice as the numbers of South Asian Muslims increase.

    The REAL THREAT to this country about this practice is however ignored by the Labour Party who are extraordinary complacent about this – for they are the beneficiaries and stupidly have put their heads in the sand about it – for the MOST OBVIOUS of reasons:
    Those that organise these mass postal votes may at some point decide to vote for another political party!
    There will very likely come a time – it MIGHT be as early as 2020 but at this stage we very much doubt it – when the South Asian Muslim vote will be “lent” to a sectarian Muslim political party. When this happens it will be a political earthquake of 9 on the Richter scale.

    This is THE development the political establishment FEAR above virtually everything else. It is also the reason why the political establishment pander to ethnic minorities and are “politically correct.”


    Because they know that following the formation of such a sectarian party their will be an equal and opposite response from the indigenous Anglo-Saxon community. Naturally, a certain Mr Nick Griffin is waiting with baited breath!

    It is also why a certain Mr George Osborne waxes lyrical from time to time about his beloved “Northern powerhouse” – you see if power is devolved to such it can be used to segregate and put to one side a Muslim community that does not vote Tory.

    • But isn’t this what we should come to expect and be prepared for, or is there anyone out there resisting such moves to oppress us all?

    • Look at the photo closely. It looks like the meeting was held in a mosque. It is normal to hold such meetings in religious buildings. Since it was a mosque it would have been expected to adopt the customs of the mosque – which means segregation – for all.

    Write a comment