Miliband the arch cynic makes his views known on immigration

Ed Milliband. perhaps the UK's next Prime Minister, makes his views known on the thorny issue of Immigration. How interesting.

Why is he doing this now?  Perhaps it is because the Census has just come out informing the electorate that the white London population is no longer in a majority. Or perhaps he has learnt from a recent survey that the electorate are very angry with the Tory party for them not being strong enough with their immigration policy, or perhaps it has been the feedback from his foot soldiers being harangued on the doorstop that a strong policy on Immigration '...will be a vote winner Ed.'

Might even get into me into POWER.  Think of it, being lauded at the White House and the Élysée Palace. And how does this fairly inconsequential man courts and aspires to Power.  There he is a millionaire who has never held a job, who has had the most privileged background from Oxford  to the London School of Economics to Harvard.  The whole educational marathon must have cost a small fortune. Who funded it?  His wealthy family one presumes.

 And it would appear that this education recently prompted him to play the mea culpa card in a display of faux honesty about immigration. The recent canard went, '... yes, we Labour when we were in power got it wrong on immigration...' nothing like a bit of honesty to win over the electorate.

And how he got it wrong. You were there Ed, complicit, like some dauphin sitting at the feet of your supposed Scottish Buddha, George Brown's, nodding through what in the words of some was'... a gerrymandering of the state.

To quote some, it is a bit rich for him, Miliband, to pop up now. For it was Labour's belief  the influx of immigrants would vote Labour. It is now a common belief it was Labour's policy to encourage mass immigration and to create a client state where there is a clientele of welfare dependent immigrants that would vote Labour. If that is not gerrymandering the State what is? And of course the Electorate was not consulted, nothing in Labour's manifesto about what they were going to do, no indication on their intention about this massive influx of people.

Now immigration is a very contentious issue so let us get the liberal qualifier out of the way: Of course one has to be cognisant of one's bias in such a contentious issue. For we can only really understand the processes of human movement and aggregation when we look at them in a wider context: over a long span of time and a wide spectrum of social conditions, and in a geographical sample big enough to present varieties of economic experience. Satisfied?

Yet facts help for during Labour' s 13 year term in office,  nearly four million people (3.8 million) arrived in England and Wales from abroad in that timeofficially one will never know the unofficial figures in the days of Labour's open door policy.

Labour had an open door policy and without any form of consultation, or care for the quality of life for the indigenous population endeavoured to retain power in the most shameless cynical manner.

 London as the census has demonstrated will never be the same. 

And if there is a wrong in this, immigration is good/bad argument who pays?

Most people in ordinary life pay in some way for their errors, but this rule seems not to apply to politicians for what has happened to those who perpetrated this 'getting it wrong'?

Is it my imagination of do these two look smug and sanctimonous.

As evidenced in the behaviour with his brother, the real Ed, if  you are to believe his right wing critics - is cut throat Ed.

  What has happened to them? Ed Miliband is a millionaire, Tony Blair is a billionaire, Gordon Brown
earns more in one month (£300,000)  on the lecture circuit  as do most UK citizens  earn in a decade. All doing very nicely, thank you. Yet there is a swathe of opinion who believes that those guility of gerrymandering, if there was gerrymandering, should go to jail.

It is an old chestnut but true none the less,  'Power does corrupt and endeavours to mainain absolute power corrupts absolutly.'