In a Guardian column on 25 Feb 19 Aditya Chakrabortty wrote an article about how Brexit was a plutocrats’ plot to enrich themselves even further. I realise that it’s the Guardian, but even by their standards this is nonsense on a motor scooter. My response grew too long for the comments so I’ve put it here:

Aditya, you write:

“Brexit was always a project driven by the right to enrich the right.”

This is utterly and completely wrong. It may be that the policy of remaining in the EU was stumbled on by accident – we are, after all, talking of the Tory Party here – why are those in the driving seat of the party embracing Bremain with enthusiasm?  Why are big landowners and predatory developers so keen on remaining inside the EU project when it is demonstrably bad for the majority, for those of us not buffered by immense wealth?

I doubt that Brexit will enrich the Right but I’m certain that the status quo is making a lot of people exceedingly rich indeed.

When she was Home Secretary Mrs May promised to reduce immigration to a net tens of thousands per year. She didn’t just fail, she didn’t try. Cameron (you know, used to be PM, surely you haven’t forgotten him already) promised the same and failed. The current Home Secretary, anxious to attract donors and backing for his upcoming coup, has admitted that the target is to be abandoned. The UK population is growing by nearly a million every four years. All those people have to live somewhere.

A housing boom, a development boom, what could possibly go wrong?

A population explosion of this magnitude could only be contained within the present infrastructure for so long, but now the pressure is too great, with the cities, particularly that immigration magnet London, rammed as full as a suburban commuter train. A ruling by the ECHR dictates that a homeless person cannot be moved more than one and a half hour’s travel from his or her roots, so there is a restriction on which counties can be the destination of those to be shunted away. The other restriction is the availability and price of development land.  So where are they to go?

As an example, look no further than Norfolk and Suffolk.

A hectare of agricultural land is worth a few thousand pounds. A hectare of building land… Hundreds of thousands, even a few millions. That would be worth a sizeable donation to influence policy, but obviously such considerations or donations would never have influenced the government’s decision to force Norfolk and Suffolk to plan for an extra 250,000 dwellings in the next ten to twelve years. Thank goodness our politicians are above such partisan and borderline corrupt practices, and make these unfortunate decisions without fear or favour, or apparently without engaging in any critical thought at all. Thank goodness the Labour Party would not think that an influx of homeless people, many from backgrounds that might be expected to vote Labour, would transform their electoral chances.

Stuart Hall, a violently left-wing academic quoted in the original article, claimed he saw how Thatcherism would win mass support: “Its success and effectivity does not lie in its capacity to dupe unsuspecting folk but in the way it addresses real problems, real and lived experiences, real contradictions…”

Mrs Thatcher is dead, and with her the idea that a political party should work for the good of the UK, for British subjects, for us, the idea that our masters should, God forbid! address real problems.  We in UKIP are unable to counter the biased media, the hostility of the BBC, the carping from the major parties who have no solutions and are closing their eyes to the problems to come. By over-emphasising the problems of Islam – undoubtedly real but manageable if we take control of our own borders – UKIP is in danger of moving itself to a marginal position. We have not lost yet. Not yet. Close the borders, stop the influx and things will settle down.

What political philosophy will emerge to address the problems of mass and uncontrolled immigration and its concomitant over-development of our already crowded island, what ‘ism’ will emerge if UKIP, that safety valve for those not considered and not cared for by the Westminster political class, falters?

Be afraid.

Sincerely, Julian Flood


Print Friendly, PDF & Email