Mr. Cameron – even his informal language is choreographed

by Andrew Brons

Warsi-Cameron-main-1Have you noticed those daring, racially-charged sound-bites from our dear leader?

A couple of months ago he referred to swarms of would-be immigrants waiting in Calais.

Then he warned that Muslim women who failed to reach a certain. unspecified, level of proficiency in English might be sent back to their countries of origin. Notice those emotive words, Muslim and sent back. Of course the reality is that a mass murderer is unlikely to be returned to his country of origin. The chance of a woman – and a Muslim woman at that – being sent back, because her English was not up to scratch, is simply non-existent.

Nevertheless, it was enough to bring Baroness Warsi to criticise her boss, in the mildest of language, for suggesting such a thing. It was almost as though Mr. Cameron and Baroness Warsi were both reading their lines, which, of course, is exactly what they were doing.

The very next day our dear leader was quoted as saying that he was sympathetic to the idea of banning the burka. Of course when you listened to the words that followed, you understood that he was talking of its being  banned only in schools and court rooms – not as robust a proposal as we might have thought at first.Muslim Ladies at School 1

Barely had we recovered from these shocks than  he referred disparagingly, in Prime Minister’s Questions,  no less,  to Mr. Corbyn, chatting to a bunch of migrants in Calais. First a swarm and then a bunch. We are reminded that flies come in swarms and bananas grow in bunches. Bananas? Come, come Mr. Cameron, we hope you are not approaching a cockroach moment – an in-joke understood only by Nationalists.

Has that previously nice Mr. Cameron been mixing with some rough types of whom his dear mother would certainly not have approved? Possibly  people with callouses on their hands, instead of on their consciences, and having a predilection for white transit vans? Might this explain his careless choice of words?

Careless was certainly what both his detractors in the Labour Party and his defenders in the Conservative Party would have us believe. However, we were reminded by one of Mr. Corbyn’s chums that Mr. Cameron does not embark on answers to Prime Minister’s Questions without carefully scripted replies, written in advance.

If Mr. Cameron used apparently robust – even insensitive – language, when talking about immigration and ethnicity, that was undoubtedly, his intention or that of his advisers.

What then was  the motivation of his Labour Party detractors? It was much the same. They too wanted to depict David Cameron as a representaive of the ‘racist’ far right, which will do him no harm as Prime Minister. This will, at least, put potentially dangerous voters at their ease and in one or other branch of the Political Class. Of course, it will serve the additional function of providing the Labour Party with an issue – possibly the only issue – on which the whole Party might agree.

Just in case the Genocide of the British People lobby should be getting nervous about Mr. Cameron, I must put their minds at rest. Mr. Cameron is as stalwart a member of that lobby as he ever was. Remember, he was the only Conservative MP to become a ‘sponsor’ of the rowdies of the Political Violence Against British Nationalists outfit, the UAF.

Mr. Cameron’s comprehensive might have been Eton but he is as much a strolling player as Dickens’  Mr. Jingle. He learns his lines as diligently as did Mrs. Thatcher, who in 1979 when she said that she understood the concerns of those who feared being swamped by immigration. Swamped? It is even more emotive than swarm.

If Mr. Cameron’s detractors had really been shocked by his choice of words, whatever did they  make of  Mr. Sarkhozy’s use of the word rakaya (scum) to describe North African rioters in a Paris suburb during the 2005 Presidential election campaign? Strictly, he was referring only to that element of the immigrant population that was rioting but the electorate interpreted it as referring to the whole North African population of France. It worked; he was elected President.

The then leader of the Front National, Jean-Marie le Pen, might have complained in the words of the former Governor of Alabama, George Wallace: “Well he out n-worded me then and no mistake”. He might have done that but I am sure that he was far too polite.

16 thoughts on “Mr. Cameron – even his informal language is choreographed

  1. (Party Official ) The George Orwell 1984 ‘ DOUBLESPEAK ‘ has increased recently , due to the battle for the survival of our Country about to reach a climax with the Referendum looming. Our Prime Minister’s claim that if we leave the Organisation that MAKES US TAKE IN IMMIGRANTS , will INCREASE IMMIGRATION and we will have large refugee camps in Kent and along the South Coast , being the latest example of this.


  2. He is certainly letting these words ”slip” strategically. The only non indigenous that vote Tory are some Hindus…and a tiny percentage of the others. He must surely know the more ”diverse” Britain becomes the more places the Tories will struggle… when their heartlands eventually become ”diversified”

    Inner London is like a daily waking nightmare – with or without the Burka…and Corbyn’s Loony Leftism could actually make the Tories look ”racist” again… UKIP will be the ones to suffer if that happens, and as we know, useless as UKIP are, it is still better for now that they are getting the anti EU/anti immigration vote.

    1. Yes, Sikhs and Hindus who own shops or other small companies are prepared to vote Tory along with Jews and Chinese people but the other ethnic minorities would rather kill their own mothers than vote Conservative. When an area becomes more ‘diverse’ it normally ceases to have a strong Tory vote. Tottenham in North London is a good example of this. As recently as the 1987 general election the Tories came a good second there and were 5,000 votes or so short of winning but now they can only get about 12% of the vote and come miles behind the Labour Party.

  3. ( Party Official ) Having just heard our Prime Minister’s latest speech regarding the European Union Superstate , I have got my largest Union Flag out and a White bedsheet. We have a balcony and when our People show rare political sense and vote OUT then I will fly the flag , as I have done all my life. If we vote to stay In , then I will fly the White sheet of surrender , with AREA 7 written on it , for that is what we will be ! Pray to God the BRITISH People get this decision right !

  4. ( Party Official ) In a further outbreak of ‘ Doublespeak ‘ , David Cameron is saying Britain should stay in and not ‘ retreat from the World ‘ . As always , it is the OTHER WAY ROUND. A vote for OUT would be Britain EMBRACING THE WORLD !

  5. ( Party Official ) Just read that the President of China wants Britain to stay in the European Union Superstate. Well , Bully Bully ! I want China to stop destroying the Wonderful Country of TIBET. Also the best thing that could happen for our Balance of Payments would be for Britain to stop importing goods from China and make things ourselves , as one day , with a British Democrat Government , we WILL !

    1. China is not the only country that wants us to stay in. President Obama no less is being lined-up to offer us friendly ‘advice’ to stay in and of course the Germans also wish us to stay. I can’t think why Angela Merkel wants this? Could it be that since we joined Britain has nearly always had a trade deficit with the EU amounting to many billions and that the main country that has contributed to it (and this is not just to do with our trade deficit with the EU but our worldwide one as well) is Germany? Germany and France basically run the EU and they wouldn’t want us to run it as well so they fix things in their favour with Britain on the sidelines making complaints but having to do as we told by them!

        1. Indeed, he would be. I remember when some lefties who read the Guardian newspaper tried to influence the result of America’s presidential election in 2004 by contacting Americans and saying they shouldn’t vote for George Bush. They got some pretty rude replies in response!

  6. ( Party Official ) I was very disappointed to read ( via our websites link ) that Prince William seems to be in favour of Britain staying in the E.U.Superstate. The main threat to our Monarchy comes from that direction and should the worst happen and we stay in , these people will up their attacks on all we hold dear , like the family , Christianity and yes , to them , the outdated institution of the Monarchy !

    1. There are other countries in the EU which have monarchies so not only would our own monarchy be attacked but also those belonging to other EU states. As for the family that will always be safe and is under no kind of threat whatever. Christianity is under threat through the deluge of migrants within the EU although saying that ordinary Europeans are becoming less religious anyway!

      1. ( Party Official ) The traditional family is actually under threat from lefty and liberal types. These attacks are underpinned by European Union Superstate legislation , i.e. the so called , mis-named human rights and equal rights stuff that the Conservatives promised to repeal in their manifesto but have not! Anyway let us stick to the subject .

        1. Whilst I am not a Tory Party member or supporter, I can’t vouch exactly for what the last Conservative Party manifesto said about every subject. I do know, however, that they apparently only promised to repeal the Human Rights Act which (I am not totally sure about this) may not have anything to do with the EU but rather is due to our membership of the Council of Europe which we would still be members of even if we left the EU. I do know that they printed a separate equalities manifesto so Tory voters and others who have since complained about what was in that document should really not have voted Tory since they did set-out what they intended to do.

          I personally can’t see any threat to the traditional family. It has been in existence for thousands of years and I really do doubt that anything now could really threaten it since it has lasted that long.

  7. Cameron is somebody you can trust to say whatever suits him at the time, the man has no real substance. Deep down most people in his party actually do know the score. But they are in constant denial and that will never change.

Leave a Reply