I’ve often thought the Labour Party’s approach to ministerial appointments was an insider game of Truth or Dare, where the PM of the day challenges the public to notice the sheer insanity of its increasingly ludicrous reshuffles. Jess Phillips as Safeguarding Minister was a pretty good effort: the woman who once said she “didn’t give a toss” about certain victims’ issues, and fought tooth and nail to water down any semblance of a proper national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’. Then there was Ange Rayner, Minister for Edyookayshun: who famously has a bit of catching up in the classroom to do herself. Throw in David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, whose most diplomatic achievement was calling Trump a ‘Neo-Nazi’ before having to have dinner with the man. It’s a crowded field. Personally, I always hoped they’d officially make Diane Abbott ‘Minister for Mathematics’, but that’s probably just being cruel.
You could say the same about the current Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood. Pitched to the public as an immigration ‘hardliner’ (yes, really), her past and her voting record would tend to suggest otherwise. Was it not Shabana who was soft on deportations and the Tories’ former Rwanda scheme? Was it not Shabana who almost always voted against a stricter asylum system? And was it not Shabana who confidently proclaimed her Muslim faith was “the core of who I am…the part of me that remains when everything else is gone” and the thing that shapes her views and drives her public service?
Under Mahmood’s stewardship, the Home Office has just announced a new sponsorship scheme for “refugees” to come into effect later this year. Modelled on the Homes for Ukraine programme (which brought in upwards of 200,000 Ukrainians displaced by the Russian invasion), the scheme will allow businesses, community organisations, and universities to sponsor refugees under “safe and legal routes.” The plan is presented as a means of reducing the number of illegals, by offering prospective arrivals a controlled pathway. Genius gaslighting, though it does seem to ignore the obvious: A) the Channel crossing is already fairly safe, judging by the thousands who make it across each week, and B) those who enter illegally are clearly not that concerned about the law in the first place.
To be fair, Labour’s approach to immigration has always been at odds with the British public. In Blair’s day, “refugees” were rounded up and press-ganged into Labour focus groups. Starmer’s ‘one-in-one-out’ Hokey Cokey never made sense to me, until I saw the hydration breaks at the World Cup. Clearly the point was to allow the Afghans and Eritreans substitutions between conquests, so that the seamless gang-rape of Britain could continue uninterrupted.
Burnham, however, may have topped them all. Eager to expand his voter base, he’d obviously much rather be King of North Africa than merely King in the North. With rumours he may scrap restrictions altogether, this leaves Mahmood in a quandary: should she stick to her ‘hardline’ guns and only let a few million in, or acquiesce by installing an illegal in every spare bedroom across the country? This has the benefit of cutting out the hotel middleman, delivers rapists to rapees as efficiently as possible, and could be sold to the public by offering tax breaks to anyone with an attractive wife or teenage daughters.
Let’s return briefly to sanity, and remind ourselves of a few of the facts. The small boat illegals are comprised almost entirely of young, fighting-age men – around 90 percent, even by the Home Office’s own statistics. Which means the war-zones they are fleeing (France?!) are so bad, only women and children should be left to face them. That is the argument, stripped of disguise and bad faith that those using words like “refugee” and “asylum” are making, and it should immediately exclude them from the conversation. Which means, at the very best, these are economic migrants the country can ill-afford.
Immigration has been the primary concern of the British public for a good many years, occasionally beaten into second place by the lamentable state of the NHS; a state caused, in no small part, by mass immigration, one ought to acknowledge. One in thirteen Londoners is an illegal immigrant, a record 20,000 foreign criminals have recently avoided deportation, and unsurprisingly Labour have secretly dropped the ban on illegals winning British citizenship. Amnesties do tend to help massage the figures.
Illegals commit a disproportionate share of sex crimes in the country, with Eritreans and Afghans working over twenty times harder than native Brits. Not to worry though, says the Home Office: the plan is to deport 45,000 illegals and foreign criminals over the next decade. The next decade. That’s 4,500 a year – or a couple of week’s worth, however you look at it. And bear in mind, we have a returns agreement with Albania which accounts for most of the removals anyway.
In short, the country is under siege.
No one in Westminster, and I mean no one could possibly pretend they thought this is what the public wanted. Yet that is precisely what the Labour administration insists on claiming. At every juncture when the public has expressed its loathing for him and his policies, Keir Starmer parroted the same line: “the British people want us to go further and faster.” Such wilful misrepresentation is the equivalent (if you’ll forgive me sticking rather crudely to our theme) of interpreting your objection to your daughter’s gang-rape, as regret that she wasn’t getting as much out of it as she could.
Let’s call this what it really is: an open declaration of war against the British people. And it’s not the first time either. Remember the illegals set to be removed from Epping, and Yvette ‘refugees welcome’ Cooper’s 11th hour Hail Mary to keep them in situ? When people consistently tell us who they are, perhaps we should start believing them?
Despite the slight optimism I still hold for a Reform government (or genuine right-wing coalition of the willing), I am erring towards the inevitable conclusion that the days of voting our way out of this problem may be coming to an end.
Prepare accordingly.
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you are welcome to subscribe to.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Some ideas on how to prepare would go down well, how about an articles or two on this?