Thread: London's Third World Subsidy

London's Third World Subsidy

By EURSOC Two Details are finally emerging of the deal Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez struck with London's Mayor Ken Livingstone on providing subsidised fuel for Londoners. According to a report in today's Guardian, low-income Londoners will get half-price bus travel thanks to a 20 percent discount on fuel provided to London transport by Mr Chavez.

In return, London will provide Venezuela with its "expertise" on town planning, tourism, public transport and environmental protection. As anyone who has ever experienced London's town planning, tourism, public transport and environmental protection will testify, this is a fairly shitty deal for Venezuelans.

According to the deal, Oyster Card using single parents, carers, and long-term sick and disabled will pay just 50p per bus journey (still more than Parisians pay...). This will fall to 45p in winter.

The deal has been touted for some time, since President Chavez's visit to London last year. The President received a heroes welcome from London's Mayor and bien-pensant left, who seemed untroubled by his plans to revise the Venezuelan constitution in favour of his "socialist revolution" and his crackdown on critics in the media. His close friendship with controversial figures such as Iran's Holocaust-denying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad worried more reflective left-wingers, but Chavez's fierce criticism of President George W Bush seems to outweigh any such worries among those on Livingstone's team.

EURSOC wondered earlier this year why one of the world's most prosperous cities needed to go cap in hand to one of the world's poorest countries for handouts. Venezuela's opposition agreed: Opposition leader Manuel Rosales said last November,

"I ask the (London) mayor not to commit that injustice to Venezuela... For me, it’s a crime that there is hunger, unemployment, poor services, hospitals that don’t work, roads that are a disaster — and the Government is giving away our wealth...Both the person giving it away and the person receiving it are sinning. Ethically, [Livingstone] should not accept it. In the name of Venezuela, we would ask him not to ruin the country any more.

“If London needed [the cheap oil], that would be one thing. But we’re talking about London here."

For a while earlier this year, it seemed that the Opposition's pleas were noticed: Chavez was widely expected to win the forthcoming election, but it did the "champion of the poor" no favours to be seen to be featherbedding Londoners when nearly forty percent of Venezuelans lived in absolute poverty. Low-income Londoners having trouble affording bus tickets are one thing: The millions of Venezuelans who don't know where their next meal is coming from would be a more pressing problem for a President, one would imagine.

Sure enough, the deal went cold for a while. A planned trip by Ken to Caracas to sign the deal was cancelled, though once Chavez got his landslide, the deal went ahead.

What's to gain from the deal, if financially it doesn't make much sense and there is little that rich, diverse, decrepit London can offer in terms of advice to Caracas? Well, Chavez gets another feather in his cap as an anti-imperialist, demonstrating that he cares for the poor of the west even where their own leaders let them down. As for Ken, he gets to smarm another real-life macho revolutionary. We wrote in February that the "shameless" Livingstone "has sucked up to left-leaning thugs for much of his political career: Chavez is just the latest in a rogue's gallery of Ken's Comrades which ranges from senior IRA terrorists to homophobic Islamist preachers. Even though his opponents in London have loudly criticised his deal with Chavez, Ken doesn't listen. It's another romantic-left poster boy for his collection."

What will Londoners make of the deal? Are they more or less likely to vote for Ken in the forthcoming elections because of his deal with Chavez? Conservative leaders attacked the Mayor, arguing that he should have gone to Britain's treasury if he needed cash for transport.

Most Londoners know little about Chavez or Venezuela. On the left, as we noted, there is some admiration for a man believed to be standing up to the US and reshaping in nation; on the right, he is seen as an irritant, by no means the worst threat out there and certainly not the worst leader to use oil money to cause mischief overseas. However, the next Mayoral election could be a close-run thing, as likely Conservative challenger Boris Johnson has captured the public's imagination like no other candidate since Livingstone did first time round.

Ken's people (and Labour in general) are rattled by Johnson's run. The public sees him as the acceptable face of Conservatism, an "affable buffoon" who doesn't play by the usual rules of politics. Labour doesn't like this, and has produced a Johnson File listing his gaffes, voting history and off-colour statements. Rather than the lovable rogue many believe him to be, they say, Boris is an establishment right-winger with archaic views on race, immigration and sexuality. Labour left wingers plan to "alert Londoners to his true nature" between now and the election. Will this scupper his campaign - or make him even more popular?
http://eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/ai ... bsidy.html

Here is an item that has been transmitted through the Internet. It's a video of a British News Commentator's editorial about what has been happening in London due to another group of immigrants.

http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba-40 ... c40995e011

Take a look and compare how it applies to what we are going through because of our own illegal immigration problems.

Spot on.

Not that i seek to draw parallels between islamist jihadists and socio ethno centric folks here in the United States but it is clear that open borders anarchists waging this demographic hegemony war on the United States are also using political correctness against us, gamng the system to get us to bow to their ethnic requests.